Point of Law: It is well settled that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from weakness of defence. This is trite law. However, where various links in a chain are in themselves complete, then a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to Court.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. MEDHI, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against a judgment and order dated 29.09.2015 passed by the learned Court of the Sessions Judge, East Sessions Division, Tezu in Sessions Case No. 118(L)/2011. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

2. To appreciate the issue involved, it would be convenient if the facts of the case are narrated in brief:

(i) The criminal law was set into motion by a verbal information given by one Sushil Chakma (PW-2) regarding the death of one Rajyadan Chakma. Based on the same verbal information, the Police had started the investigation for the death caused at about 3 pm of 18.06.2010 in which the inquest was done, materials were seized and the accused was apprehended. It was thereafter, that a formal FIR was lodged on the same date i.e. 18.06.2010 at about 8.30 p.m.

(ii) Admittedly, there was no eye-witness in the present case and the conviction is apparently based on circumstantial evidence.

(iii) To bring home the charges, the prosecution had adduced evidence through 15 number of PWs. On the other hand, the accused had adduced evidence as DW-1.

(iv) PW-1 is Smti Rangabi Chakma, who is the widow of the deceased Rajyadan Chakma. In her chief examination, she had stated that about 2(two) years back both the accused and her deceased husband along with some other people were taking local “apong” in their house when she had gone out for collecting pig fodder. However, when she had come back, she saw her husband lying on the floor near the bed in a pool of blood and was having cut injuries on his neck. However, the husband was still alive and breathing and the accused person was not there as he fled away. She further clarified that she did not know who had cut her husband in his neck. She had made a categorical statement that the accused had not done anything to her as she was absent at the time of incident. The aforesaid PW-1 was declared hostile by the prosecution.

In her cross-examination done by the prosecution after declaring her to be hostile, she had negated the suggestion that she had stated before the Police that the accused had assaulted her husband on his neck by Daw and had also assaulted her and cut her neck with the Daw for which she had received sever injuries on her neck. She had also negated the suggestion of being taken to Namsai for treatment and so far as the injury mark was concerned she had stated that the said was not caused by the accused appellant. However, she had categorically stated that she did not see the incident by her own eyes.

(v) PW-2 is one Sushil Chakma, who deposed that on hearing about the incident, he had rushed to the Police Station and had informed the matter to the Officer of Chownkham P.S. thereafter, he had come back to the spot with the Police party. The accused was found loitering in the football field from where he was arrested. Thereafter, he had gone with many other persons to the place of occurrence and he is also one of the seizure witnesses of the material seized including the weapon of assault which is Daw. He had also proved his signature in the materials exhibited which was seized by the Police. In his cross-examination he has categorically admitted that he is not an eye-witness and merely a hearsay witness to the incident.

(vi) PW-3 is Smti Rokhini Chakma, who is the wife of Shri Bachodon Chakma (the informant). In her deposition, he had stated that she was the neighbour and while cutting firewood, she had seen 3(three) persons present at the place of occurrence and the deceased full of blood jumping out from the house and falling down on the ground and that he was having a severe Daw cut injury on his neck. The witness also saw the wife of the deceased having a Daw cut injury on her back of neck which she was closing by one hand and holding her child with her other hand. She then narrates that she took away the child to enab