Point of law : As a corollary to aforesaid proposition, if upon cross examination by party calling such witness to give evidence testimony rendered is not contradicted, we have to understand that such evidence which remains uncontradicted can be relied upon by either of parties be it prosecution or defence.

JUDGMENT :

AM BUJOR BARUA, J.

1. Heard Mr. D Mozumdar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. NNB Choudhury, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh assisted by Mr. G Alam, learned counsel for the informant/respondent No.2.

2. An ejahar was lodged by Dipin Maga, son of Bapu Maga on 18.09.2006 before the Officer-in-Charge of Naharlagun Police Station inter alia stating that on the previous night at around 11.30 P.M., when he along with his friends Subash Jeram (since deceased), Nitu Murterm, Vijoy Dasi and Chaba were returning back from Naharlagun, two girls and the accused Talin Biri were in a vehicle on the bridge over the Dikrong river. As they reached the place of occurrence, the accused Talin Biri was furious and had challenged the informant and his other friends resulting in a hot argument with the deceased Subash Jeram and in furtherance thereof, the accused Talin Biri had assaulted the deceased Subash Jeram with a dao which resulted in dao injuries causing his death. It is stated in the ejahar that the reason for the killing was not known. The learned Sessions Judge West Sessions Division Yupia (A.P) had framed the following charges against the accused who is referred to as Biri Talin:

“ Firstly: That you on 17.09.2006, at about 2300 Hrs. at Dikrong Bridget, you intentionally committed murder of Lt. Subash Jeram by cutting him with a dao and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, and within my cognizance.”

Secondly: That on the same day, time and place, you intentionally causing disappearance of evidence of offence (dao) to screen offence and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC and within my cognizance.”

3. In course of the trial, the prosecution examined 9(nine) witnesses, whereas the accused Biri Talin deposed himself as DW-1. Three statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. made by Vijoy Dasi, the informant Dipin Maga and Tabu Jeke were exhibited as Exhibits 1, 3 and 4 respectively. Apart from the aforesaid statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of Nido Pumin, Debia Rupa, Nitu Murtem and the accused Biri Talin were also exhibited as Exhibits 13, 14, 15 and 16 respectively.

4. PW-1, Vijay Dasi who is also one of the friends of the informant Dipin Maga referred in the ejahar in his deposition as PW-1 stated that the date of occurrence was on a Viswakarma Puja occasion and at that time he went to the house of Nitu Murtem at Abotani Colony, Itanagar and Tabu Jeke and the deceased Subash Jeram also came. After washing their motorcycles, they decided to roam around as it was puja occasion and it was evening time. The witnesses deposed that from Itanagar they went to Doimukh side and all four were standing on the Doimukh bridge, when suddenly one white car came at the bridge and the accused came out from the car with a dao in his right hand and without saying anything started assaulting the deceased Subash Jeram with his dao all over his body. The witness also stated that the informant Dipin Maga and one more lady were present in the vehicle along with the accused Biri Talin at that time. Thereafter, the victim was lifted and put in the back seat of the vehicle and was taken to General Hospital, Naharlagun.

5. PW-2, the informant Dipin Maga in his deposition stated that on 17.09.2006 at about 9 P.M. he had received a call from his friend Nido Pumin calling them to Doimukh near St. Thomas School and accordingly, he along with his friends Tabu Jeke, Nitin Murtem, Vijay Dasi went to the place on two bikes. Upon reaching the place, they found Nido Pumin and Debia Rupa and Debia Rupa told that her friend was going on a vehicle so she required a telephone to call her friend and accordingly asked for a mobile phone from the witness. As the mobile phone of the witness did not have the required balance, the mobile phone of the deceased Subash Jeram was given to De