Point of Law : It is well settled in a catena of cases that the evidence of eye witnesses cannot be rejected merely because they are related. The relatives will not exonerate real culprits and falsely implicate others.

JUDGMENT :

Malasri Nandi, J.

Heard Ms. S. Khataniar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State.

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the sole appellant Chitra Bora challenging the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15/07/2019 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat in Sessions Case no 222/2014 by which the appellant has been convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for another one month.

3. The prosecution case what emerges from the FIR is that the informant Bipul Hazarika lodged an FIR before the O.C. Jamuguri PS stating inter alia that on 22/09/2014 at about 4 P.M. accused Chitra Bora inflicted grievous injury to Dilip Hazarika by stabbing him with a knife in the Verandha of his house and fled away from the scene. Though the injured was immediately taken to Golaghat Civil Hospital by 108 Ambulance for treatment but the doctor declared him brought dead.

4. On the basis of the Ejahar a case was registered vide Jamuguri PS case no 43/2014 u/s 302 IPC. During investigation the investigating officer visited the place of occurrence, prepared the site plan and recorded the statement of the witnesses. The IO also seized one knife during investigation by which the accused/appellant had committed the offence. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet had been submitted against four accused persons namely the present appellant Chitra Bora and three others namely Ajit Gogoi, Jatin Bora and Maneshwar Bora u/s 302/109/34 IPC before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat. The Learned CJM, Golaghat took cognizance of the offence and the accused persons were furnished with the copies of the relevant documents u/s 207 Cr.pc and the case had been committed to the Court of Sessions.

5. Based on the materials available on record, the trial court framed charge u/s 302/34 IPC and the same was read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty. To prove the case of the prosecution as many as nine witnesses were examined and marked eight exhibits and two material objects.

6. Based on the incriminating materials, the appellant alongwith other accused persons were examined u/s 313 Cr.PC and they denied the same. Though, they were provided an opportunity to examine the witnesses if any, but no witness was examined and no document was marked on their side.

7. Having considered all the materials available before the Trial Court, the accused/appellant Chitra Bora was convicted as aforesaid. But the other accused persons who were facing trial in Sessions case no 222/2014 were acquitted by the trial court. Challenging the conviction and sentence the accused/appellant is before this court with this Criminal Appeal.

8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Ms. S. khataniar and the learned Additional Public prosecutor appearing for the state Ms. S. Jahan and we have also perused the record of Sessions case no 222/2014 and the documents available therein.

9. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that though prosecution projected P.W-4 as an eye witness but she is the wife of the deceased and is an interested witness, gave false statement against the appellant. In fact she was not present at the time of the incident. The evidence of PW4 before the court and the statement made by her before the investigating officer are contradictory to each other. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that learned trial Court erred in placing reliance on the evidence of P.W-3 and P.W-4 as because they are relatives and interested witnesses.

10. Alternatively the learned counsel for the appellant argued that prior to the incident a quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased and the accused/appellant due to heat of passion came to