The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for consistent and reliable evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, in line with the presumption of innocence in criminal jurisprudence.

Indian criminal jurisprudence rests on cardinal principle that an accused shall be presumed to be innocent until the time he is proved guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. This basic tenet must be borne in mind by every Court exercising criminal jurisdiction.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 3.11.96, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, in Session Case No. 32(T)/89, convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302/34IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.50007- and in default, to suffer R.I. for a further period of 2 (two) years.

3. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be stated as follows:-

On 7.3.87, one Sri Ajoy Chakraborty of Ledo lodged a written ejahar (Ext. 1), at Ledo Police Outpost, alleging, inter alia, that on that very day i.e., on 7.3.87 at 8.30 p.m., his elder brother, . Ashok Chakraborty, was found lying in a critical condition near his house with an iron arrow struck into his chest and, on being asked, the said injured disclosed that it was Budhuwa Mura, a resident of Natun Line of Ledo Tea Estate, who had shot him with arrow. Treating the said ejahar as First Information Report, Margherita Police Station Case No. 39/87 under Section 326 IPC was initially registered against the accused-appellant, namely, Budhuwa Mura. Later on, as the injured succumbed to his injuries, Section 302 IPC was added thereto and accused Mangra Mura was also impleaded as accused. Inquest was held over the said deadbody and post-mortem examination was also conducted thereon. During investigation, Police arrested the accused-appellant and, on completion of investigation, Police laid chargesheet against the two accused aforementioned under Section 302/34 IPC.

4. During trial, as accused Mangra Mura absconded, he was declared absconder and the trial proceeded against the present appellant when a charge framed under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was explained to the appellant, he pleaded not guilty thereto.

5. In all, prosecution examined seven witnesses including the Investigating Officer. When the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he denied that he had committed the offence alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of total denial. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence.

6. The moot point, which has been raised in the present appeal, is this: whether the finding of guilt arrived at by the learned trial Court against the accused-appellant is justified on the basis of the evidence on record and law relevant thereto?

7. We have carefully perused the record including the impugned judgment and order. We have heard Mr P. Mahanta, learned Amicus Curiae, and Mr P. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

8. Upon hearing the appeal and the perusal of the record, we notice that the post-mortem examination conducted, on 9.3.87 at 7 a.m., on the deadbody of deceased Ashok revealed, according to Dr. N. Sonowal (PW-3), as follows:-

One penetrating wound l/2 x 1A cm size present 8 cm below and left to the zyphistenal point and 3 cm left to the median line skin, muscles and perforates the anterior abdominal wall enters the anterior surface of the stomach wall and then perforates the stomach and comes, out through the posterior wall of the stomach and enters into the first lumber vertebra at its lateral lumber vertebra at its lateral sight (left side). Total length of the track was 18 cm deep direction anterior posteriorly downward.

9. According to PW-3, the said injury was ante-mortem in nature and death, in his opinion, was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of penetrating wound of the abdomen caused by a sharp pointed weapon (arrow), which was homicidal in nature. PW-3 has further opined that the said injury was sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death of the person concerned.

10. We notice that the finding of PW-3 and the opi