JUDGMENT :

A.M. Bujor Barua, J.

1. Heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. M. Phukan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State Authorities.

2. As per the service report dated 18.08.2018, the informant/respondent No.2, Kinu Sautal had been duly served, but none appears.

3. An Ejahar dated 15.12.2006, was lodged by one, Kinu Sautal before the Officer-in-Charge of Samaguri Police Station, inter-alia, stating that his mentally deranged younger brother, Lakhan Sautal went out of his house after taking dinner on the previous night, but he did not return thereafter. Next day, people saw some blood stained cloth and one amputated finger and an old blanket of his brother lying there and thereafter people saw a dead body in the nearby pond.

4. Kinu Sautal, P.W-1, who is the informant, in his deposition stated that his brother had a quarrel with the accused Solu Gour on the previous night and their houses are adjacent to each other. The witness stated that although both of them quarrelled, but he does not know as to over what issue they had quarrelled. After the quarrel, his younger brother disappeared from the house. When he returned from his work, his wife told him that his brother had disappeared, but the witness had not undertaken any search for his brother during the night. In the morning, a person named Tapan came to his house and told him that someone had thrown his brother into a well. Upon reaching the place, he found that his brother was lying dead in a well located in the house of Bipin Bhuyan, which again was in front of the Indira Gandhi School. Upon recognizing the dead person to be his brother, P.W-1 went to the house of the gaoburah named Jadav Das, who accompanied him to the police station for lodging of an ejahar. In cross, the witness stated to a suggestion that it is not a fact that he had written in the Ejahar that his brother had a mental problem, but at the same time, the witness in cross also stated that his brother had some mental problem and had undergone various treatments for the purpose, although he could not continue with the treatment due to paucity of money. At the same time, P.W-1 also stated in cross that the deceased used to live separately by earning his own livelihood and he had married earlier, but his wife had left him because of his mental problem. P.W-2, Maru Shantal in his deposition stated that his house is about 4 KM away from the house of the deceased and when he heard about the death of his brother, he came to the spot and found that the dead body was lying in a well.

5. None of the prosecution witnesses being P.W-3, P.W-4, P.W-5, P.W-6 and P.W-7 had seen the occurrence and all of them have reached the place of occurrence after it took place. P.W-5, Jadav Das, who is the gaonburah, in his deposition had stated that the weapons used in the offence, including the stones for the catapult used by the deceased were seized as per exhibit-2 and exhibit 2-(1) was his signature, but again in cross, P.W-5 stated that when he had put his signature on exhibit-2, something was already written there and he did not know as to how and from where the police had seized the items. The evidence of P.W-5 as regards the seizure assumes important from the point of view that the discovery of the weapons were on the basis of a disclosure by the accused himself, upon which the weapons were seized in the presence of the witnesses stated therein, where P.W-5 was one of the witnesses. Although, P.Ws.6 and 7 are shown as witnesses in the exhibit-2 seizure list, but in their depositions the witnesses had not stated anything about the seizure.

6. P.W-8, Dr. Keshavananda Goswami, who conducted the post-mortem examination, in his deposition had stated that the following injuries were found on the body of the deceased. In the opinion of P.W-8, the death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage because of the injuries sustained, which were as follows:

“1. Transverse incised wound left forearm with fra