Manojit Bhuyan, J.

1. The appellant Bogai Bouri has been convicted under Section 109/302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine and default stipulations for the death of Mohammed Hussain @ Faruk. Three other persons were jointly tried for the murder of Mohammed Hussain and convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.

2. The prosecution case is that on 08.07.2010, in between 4:30 to 6 P.M., Mohammed Hussain @ Faruk of Dakhin Hengera Tea Estate was assaulted by the three other co-accused’s at the instance of the appellant by means of sharp objects. The place of occurrence was beside the road of Line No. 6 of the Tea Estate, where the mutilated body of Mohammed Hussain was found in a ditch. Ejahar dated 10.07.2010 came to be lodged by Mohammed Rohimuddin Ali (PW2), who is the son of the deceased and the same was registered as Golaghat P.S. Case No. 348/2010 under Section 302 IPC. In course of investigation the appellant along with the other three accused’s were arrested and upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted for committing offence under Sections 341, 302, 109, 34 IPC. The case was committed to trial.

3. The prosecution examined as many as 12(twelve) witnesses, including the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer. The appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and was also heard on the point of sentence. Medical evidence brought on record disclosed 6 (six) incised wounds on the neck, lower back, buttock etc. on the person of Mohammed Hussain @ Furuk. In the opinion of Dr. Sayed Sajadur Rahman (PW4), death was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of cut injuries caused by sharp weapon.

4. Conviction of the appellant is primarily on the confessional statements made by the other three co-accused’s before Ankur Bhuyan (PW8), who at the relevant time was serving as Judicial Magistrate (1st Class) at Golaghat. The names of the other three co-accused’s are Rantu Mahili, Dukhia Karmakar and Saharu Orang. As recorded by the Court below, there is no direct evidence against the appellant, save and except the confessions made by the three co-accused’s mentioned above. To what extent the confessional statements, marked as Ext-7, Ext.-8 and Ext.-9 can be made the basis for convicting the appellant, having regard to the scope of Section 30 of the Evidence Act as well as the law laid down by the Apex Court on the issue involved, is the primary point for determination in this appeal. From the materials on record there is no doubt that the confessional statements of Rantu Mahili, Dukhia Karmakar and Saharu Orang had been recorded observing the required formalities under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The contents of the confessional statements made by the three accused’s persons above are pre-dominantly the same where each of them have confessed to the murder of Faruk, on having been tempted by the appellant that they will be given a sum of Rs. 15,000/-. However, the promised money was not paid. For better appreciation the confessional statements of Rantu Mahili, Dukhia Karmakar and Saharu Orang are reproduced here under: Rantu Mahili – “About one month back Bogai Bauri intended to offer us an amount of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) to kill Faruk. Out of the greed for money we killed Faruk in the Tea estate. As Bogai Bauri did not pay us the money after we had killed Faruk, we confess out guilt as we have committed sin by killing a person and have not been paid the promised money. I have this much to say.” Dukhia Karmakar – “Alluring us with money Bogai Bauri got a person killed by us. But he did not pay us the money after we had killed Suikur (sic). Rantu first hacked in the head of Sukur (sic) with a ‘Bhujali’ (sword). Then I alongwith Saharu inflicted injury to Sukur (sic) with knife. As Sukur (sic) died we lifted his dead body and threw it into a ditch. I have this much to say.” Saharu Ora