Point of Law: Procedure for recording the statement of the accused person so as to allow him an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances, if any, appearing in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution side.

JUDGMENT :

Suman Shyam, J.

Heard Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the sole appellant. We have also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. None has appeared for the informant/respondent No.2.

2. By filing the instant appeal, the judgment and order dated 24.09.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Sessions Case No.201/2012 convicting the sole appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, has been challenged primarily on the ground that there is no evidence available on record so as to sustain the conviction of the appellant in this case.

3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that on 03.09.2011, at about 5.50 p.m. the appellant Sahid Khan had beheaded Junglee @ Bijay Mahato by hacking him with a dao in front of hotel Annapurna at Bamunbari Tiniali and thereafter, was seen to be roaming around with the severed head of the deceased. On 03.09.2011 itself, at about 5.55 p.m., a police personnel named Sri Nripen Bora had called up Sri Jyoti Lahon, the Officer-in-Charge of Bamunbari Police Outpost and informed him about the incident. Upon receipt of the aforesaid information, General Diary Entry No.46 dated 03.09.2011 was made whereafter, the police had rushed to the place of occurrence. Upon arrival at the place of occurrence, the Sub-Inspector Jyoti Lahon had recovered the dead body as well as the severed head of the deceased from the accused person. On 04.09.2011, the sister of the deceased viz. Hiramoni Mahato had lodged an F.I.R. before the Officer-in-Charge of Bamunbari Police Outpost which was forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge of Moran Police Station. Based on the F.I.R. dated 04.09.2011, Moran P.S. Case No.128/2011 was registered under Section 302 of the IPC and the matter was taken up for investigation.

4. During the course of investigation the accused was arrested and the weapon used in commission of the offence was seized. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) had recorded the statement of the witnesses. Inquest and post-mortem examination was conducted over the dead body and the post-mortem report was also collected by the I.O. Upon completion of the investigation, the I.O. had laid charge-sheet under Section 302 of the I.P.C. against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused but since he had pleaded innocence, the accused was made to face the trial.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution side had examined as many as six witnesses including Dr. Manoj Kumar Singha (PW-5) who had conducted the post-mortem examination and the Investigating Officer, Sri Jyoti Lahon (PW-6). After recording the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded by the learned trial court under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein, the accused had denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him. The defence side, however, did not adduce any evidence. Upon appreciation of the evidence available on record, the learned trial court had found the appellant guilty of committing the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him as aforesaid.

6. By referring to the impugned judgment dated 24.09.2018, Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that out of the six witnesses examined by the prosecution, as many as three of them viz., PWs-1, 2 and 3 were declared as hostile witnesses. There are material contradictions in the testimony of PW-4, who is the informant in this case, and such contradictions have also been duly proved by the I.O. According to Mr. Bhuyan, save and except the testimony of the I.O. (PW-6) there is no evidence to even remotely implicate the appellant with the commission of the offence. Since the I.O. is an interested person, who was controlling the outcome of the investigation, accord