Point of Law : Criminal Law – Offence of Murder - Examination of witnesses by police - No doubt correct that materials on record indicated that accused had surrendered before Police Station and had reportedly confessed to have killed victim - However, it is established position in law that a confession made by accused in Police Station would not have any evidential value.

JUDGMENT :

Suman Shyam, J

1. Heard Ms. Bijita Sarma, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant. We have also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned APP, Assam, appearing for the State/ respondent No.1. None has appeared for the informant/respondent no.2.

2. The instant appeal from jail is directed against the judgment dated 15/05/2018 passed by the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hojai in Sessions Case No. 15(N)/2017, convicting the sole appellant U/Ss 341/302 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for committing the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence committed under Section 341 IPC and also to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/-.

3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that on 09/11/2015 at around 3 P.M., Md. Mustafa Ahmed i.e. the deceased was returning home from Doboka after purchasing some goods when he was attacked by the appellant and 4 (four) other companions after intercepting him on the Doboka Pathar Jur Dighal road and killed him by cutting his neck with a sharp weapon. The father of the deceased, viz. Md. Ataur Rahman had lodged an ejahar on 10/11/2015 with the Officer-in-Charge of Doboka Police Station reporting the incident. Based on the aforesaid ejahar, Doboka Police Station case No. 495/2016 was registered under Sections 341/302/34 IPC, where-after, investigation was started. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer (IO) had submitted Charge sheet against the appellant Md. Mazid Ali on the basis of the materials collected against him. However, the other accused persons were not sent up for trial since no incriminating material could be found against them.

4. On the basis of the Charge Sheet submitted by the I.O., charges under Sections 341/302 IPC were framed against the accused/appellant and the contents of the charges were read over and explained to him. Since the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, hence, the matter went up for trial.

5. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. In order to bring home the charges framed against the accused/appellant, the prosecution had examined as many as 9(nine) witnesses including the Doctor (PW-4) who had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body, the I.O.(PW-8) and the Circle Officer (PW-9), who had conducted inquest on the dead body.

6. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has held that the charges brought against the appellant were proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

7. Assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 15/05/2018, Ms. Sarma, learned Amicus Curiae has argued that there is no eye witness in this case and the evidence of PWs 1 & 2 were not trustworthy. Therefore, their testimonies could not have been relied upon by the learned Trial Court for convicting the appellant moreso, since both those witnesses were related to the victim. Ms. Sarma has further argued that there is no proper evidence connecting the appellant with the commission of the crime and since the IO had failed to get the finger prints on the seized “dao” examined through the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), the prosecution case could not have been held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Ms. Sarma has also argued that there is no proper explanation as to why the IO did not get the alleged confessional statement of the accused recorded before a Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the confession allegedly made by the appellant before the Police during the course of investigation would not have any relevant bearing in this case. That apart, she submits, there is material discrepancies as regard the time of seizure of the weapon, which raises serious doubt on the prosecution story.

8. Responding to the above, Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned APP, Assam, submits that the occurrence evidently took place in a