The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of consistent and corroborated testimonies in providing material evidence, despite inconsistencies and improvements in witness statements.

N. Sailo, J.

Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam who appears for the respondent No.1 and Mr. A.M. Bora, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. C. Choudhury, for the respondent Nos. 2 to 10.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Musstt. Mani Begum, wife of the deceased Kala Miya against the Judgment dated 11.12.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cachar at Silchar in Sessions Case No.32 of 2007 acquitting all the accused persons from the charges framed U/Ss 341/323/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that an FIR was lodged by Azizur Rahman Laskar on 16.05.2002 before the Officer in-charge, Silchar Police Station stating that he alongwith two of his co-villagers were returning home from Baskandi at about 5 pm on 16.05.2002 and upon reaching the middle of old Raj Para in Algapur village, the accused persons named in the FIR attacked them with dao, spear, dagger, lathis and stones. His two companions Kala Miya Laskar and Maskandav Ali Mazumdar were caught by the attackers but he somehow managed to save himself. After beating Maskandar, the attackers released him and they began assaulting Kala Mia. At that moment, the attackers viz; Akabur Rahman, Samsul Haque and Abdul Malique shouted that they should finish him off whereupon, Nazam Uddin thrust a spear into Kala Mias neck and Rehim Uddin gave a cut blow. As a result, Kala Mia succumbed to his injuries. In view of the report, Silchar PS case No. 674 of 2002 U/Ss 147/148/149/341/323/302 IPC was registered and investigated into.

4. Upon completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against 10 accused persons out of the 32 persons named in the FIR before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 05.05.2007 committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Cachar, Silchar whereafter, charge was framed against the accused persons U/Ss 341/323/302/34 IPC on 16.06.2007. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial and therefore, trial was set in motion. During trial, altogether 16 prosecution witnesses and 2 (two) Court witnesses were examined. After the evidence of the prosecution was closed, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) and thereafter, the Judgment dated 11.12.2013 was passed by the learned Trial Court acquitting all the accused persons from the charge framed U/Ss 341/323/302/34 of the IPC.

5. Appearing for the appellant, Mr. A. Choudhury, submits that from the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses, the commission of the offences U/Ss 341/323/302/34 of the IPC by the accused persons was clearly established. According to him, the evidence of PW Nos.2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14 in particular are material to prove the case against the accused persons. He submits that while the evidence of PW Nos.2, 5 and 8 proved the case against the accused Ataur Rahman (Respondent No.10), the evidence of PW Nos.5, 6, 10, 11 and 14 proved the case against all the other accused persons i.e., respondent Nos. 2 to 9. He further submits that although there may be minor contradictions but nevertheless, the same does not weaken the case of the prosecution and importantly, it cannot be the basis for acquitting all the accused persons. Mr. A. Choudhury further submits that the learned Trial Court committed error in discrediting the evidence led by the prosecution by taking a view that improvements were made by the prosecution witnesses in their version during trial. He submits that in fact, the assault upon the deceased was premeditated by the accused persons and therefore, it is a clear case of murder. The learned Trial Court therefore, committed manifest error in law and on facts by a