JUDGMENT

Soumitra Saikia, J. - Heard Mr. S. Khound, learned counsel for the appellant, Amicus Curiae appointed by the Court as well as Mr. M. Phukan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 26.09.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, in Sessions Case No. 132/2014 convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand Only) in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 1(one) month.

3. The prosecution's case is that on 02.08.2006 at about 5:30 pm, the accused Kameswar Majhi called one Ramu Bhumij, his niece Pramila Bhumij and her husband Ramesh Bhumij to his house. He offered them a bench to sit in the courtyard of his house and asked them to prepare "sada" (chewing tobacco). While Ramu Bhumij and Ramesh Bhumij were preparing tobacco, the accused armed with a dao attacked Ramu Bhumij from behind beheading him. Ramu Bhumij, the deceased, died instantaneously as his head was severed from his body on being attacked with a dao by the accused-Kameswar Majhi.

4. An FIR was lodged by P.W.1, Sri Sukhchand Bhumij on 03.08.2006 i.e. the following day before the Tengakhat Police Station district Dibrugarh. The FIR filed, was duly received and registered as Tengakhat P.S. Case No. 61/2006 under Section 302 IPC. Upon due investigations, the Police filed the chargesheet under one head wherein the accused Kameswar Majhi was charged with murder and intentionally causing death of the deceased-late Ramu Bhumij thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and within the cognizance of Court of Sessions, Dibrugarh. The prosecution presented 5(five) witnesses in support of their case as well as other evidences like Post-mortem report, inquest report, sketch map and dead body challan etc.

5. P.W.1 is the informant who is the elder brother of the deceased. In his deposition, the P.W.1 stated that on the date of occurrence i.e. 02.08.2006 while he was in his house, his sister-in-law i.e. wife of the deceased-Ramu Bhumij informed him that Ramu Bhumij was cut and murdered by Kameswar Majhi. He then came to the house of the accused-Kameswar Majhi and saw the dead body of the deceased-Ramu Bhumij. The head of the deceased was separated from his body. He came to know from Ramu Bhumij that they saw the accusedKameswar Majhi assault Ramu Bhumij. P.W.1 informed the matter to the Gaon Bura of the locality on the same day and on the next day the FIR was lodged at Tengakhat Police Station which was written by one Inam Khan, on his instructions and he had put his thumb impression on the FIR. P.W.1 deposed that the Police completed the inquest over the dead body of his deceased brother-Ramu Bhumij and he identified the deceased as his brother. The Police, thereafter, took the dead body for Post-mortem examination.

6. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 stated that he was not the eye-witness to the occurrence. The accused-Kameswar Majhi is his neighbour. He stated that he did not personally know who committed the murder. He deposed that when he went to the place of occurrence it was dark and although he did not enter into the compound of the accused he had seen the dead body from 100(hundred) yards. It was dark and there was no electricity in the village but he saw the head in the body at a distance. He also deposed that he cannot say whether there was any quarrel between the accused and the deceased nor had he seen Ramu Bhumij at any time with the accused-Kameswar Majhi. P.W.1 also denied a suggestion that the accused was falsely entangled with the case.

7. From the deposition of the P.W.1, it is apparent that he is the elder brother of the deceased and a neighbor of the accused but he was not an eyewitness to the offence committed. But he had seen the dead body with its head severed lying in the courtyard of the accused