Point of Law : It is open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction, if the quality of the witness makes the testimony acceptable.

JUDGMENT :

Malasri Nandi, J.

1. Heard Mr. T.R. Sarma, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant. We have also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, appearing for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 01/09/2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tezpur, Sonitpur, arising out of Sessions Case No.260/2014 u/s 302 IPC. The appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months.

3. The prosecution case, as unfolded, is that on 11/05/2014 one Makani Lagi Siri, the village head of Bharali Basti village under Chariduar PS of Sonitpur district lodged an Ejahar before the OC Chariduar PS stating inter alia that on 09/05/2014 at about 5:30 PM accused Rajesh Racha assaulted his sister in law Pakju Racha, and dealt a dao blow following a quarrel with her over some domestic issues. Due to the alleged assault Pakju Racha sustained grievous injuries on her person. Immediately she was taken to Mission Hospital, Tejpur but the doctor declared her brought dead.

4. The aforesaid FIR led to the institution of Chariduar PS case no 50/2014 whereupon investigation was taken up. During investigation the investigating officer recorded the statement of the witnesses, prepared the site plan and seized one dao from the place of occurrence vide material exhibit 1. Then the inquest on the dead body of the deceased was conducted and thereafter the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. The accused was arrested accordingly and produced before the court and he was remanded to judicial custody. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused Rajesh Racha u/s 302 IPC before the court of Additional CJM Tezpur, Sonitpur and the case was committed to the court of Sessions and thereupon the trial commenced.

5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution had examined eight witnesses out of whom PW4 was considered to be an eye witness. Learned Trial Court convicted the accused/appellant on the basis of the evidence of PW2, PW4 and PW6. During trial the trial court marked six exhibits and one material object.

6. The defence case as is evident from the mode of cross examination as well as from the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C is of complete denial as well as pleading innocence. The defence did not choose to adduce any evidence in support of their case.

7. Manifold arguments have been made on behalf of the appellant while assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. Criticizing the appreciation of evidence and the findings recorded by the learned trial court, learned Amicus Curie Mr. T. Sharma has contended that two crucial witnesses namely Mugdali Munda i.e. the maid servant who had seen the incident and the daughter of the deceased Sunita who was found sitting near the deceased have not been examined and their non-examination creates a grave doubt about the version set forth by the prosecution. His further submission is that though P.W-4 was projected as eye witness of the incident but he did not state before the police that he had seen the incident which was confirmed by the investigating officer while deposing before the court.

8. The learned amicus curie would also submit that there are other contradictions found in the evidence of other witnesses regarding production of seized dao. According to the witnesses, the maid servant brought the dao before the police but the investigating officer PW8 while deposed before the court stated that the accused showed and handed over one dao to him by which he had killed the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant also raised another point regarding delay in lodging FIR. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the explanation in section 162 Cr.P.C. wherein it is clearly stated that omission amounts to contradictions. The last plank of argument of Mr. T. Sharma is that