A confessional statement made voluntarily and corroborated by other evidence can be relied upon for conviction even if it is retracted during the trial.

JUDGMENT

N. Kotiswar Singh, J. - Heard Mr. Z. Hussain, 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 31.03.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Silchar in Sessions Case No. 136/2015 convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand Only) in default of payment, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 1(one) month.

3. The prosecution case in brief as unfolded in course of the trial is that on 01.03.2015 at around 9:00 p.m. the appellant killed his wife, namely, Bappi alias Mamoni Nath in his rented house at Meherpur by hitting with a Dao (a machete) on her head and neck resulting in her death.

4. A formal FIR was lodged by the house owner on the next day on 02.03.2015, though it appears from the FIR that investigation had started on the night of incident after the police were informed of the incident. It has been mentioned in the FIR that the appellant and the deceased along with her two sons had been residing in the rented premises belonging to the informant for about 5(five) months and they used to fight over domestic matters. It has been mentioned in the FIR that at around 9:00 p.m. on 01.03.2015, one of his tenants called the informant and informed him that the appellant had hacked his wife with a dao and on getting such information he immediately rushed to the place of occurrence and found the deceased was lying in a pool of blood and the appellant, armed with a dao, was sitting beside the deceased. He, immediately, informed the police outpost of the matter. The police, thereafter, came and arrested the appellant. On conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for trial under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution produced as many as 7(seven) witnesses but no witness was produced by the defence.

5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on considering the evidence on record and on hearing the parties, convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life as mentioned above vide Judgment and Order dated 31.03.2016 against which the present appeal has been filed.

6. The prosecution case was supported by seven witnesses and other evidences including Inquest Report, Post-Mortem Report as well as confessional statement made by the appellant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., though the same was retracted during the trial.

7. The prosecution witness, P.W.1 was the informant. He deposed that though he was not an eye-witness, he was informed by one of his tenants soon after the occurrence about the killing of the wife of the appellant. On being so informed the informant rushed to the room of the appellant and found him sitting beside the dead body of his wife. On being asked as to what happened by the P.W.1, the appellant replied that he had killed his wife. The P.W.1 saw the cut injury mark on the forehead of the deceased and a blood stained dao on the bed. He then informed the local Panchayat member. In the meantime, other people also gathered at the place of occurrence. The police was duly informed and accordingly, the police came and arrested the appellant. An inquest was held over the dead body on which the P.W.1 put his signature as a witness which was duly proved before the Court. The P.W.1 was a witness to the seizure of the dao and the mobile phone which was duly proved in course of the trial. The Police also seized one black colour pant and one white shirt of the appellant and one maxi and red colour petticoat of the deceased of which the P.W.1 was also a witness which was duly proved in course of the trial. The FIR which was lodged by the P.W.1on the next day was also proved during the trial.

8. During the cross-examination, thou