Point of Law : Trial Court did not pass any order for payment of compensation to victim or his dependents as contemplated under Section 357A of Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

N. Kotiswar Singh, J.

Heard Mr. U.S. Borgohain, learned amicus curiae for the appellant. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. B. Baruah, learned legal aid counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 02.03.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Jorhat in Sessions Case No.104(JJ)/2012 arising out of G.R. Case No.1232/2012 under Mriani P.S. Case No.68/2012, by which the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6(six) months.

3. The aforesaid trial commenced after the criminal justice system was activated on filing of an FIR on 22.07.2012 by the informant (respondent No.2) to the effect that on the night of 21.07.2012, Gobin Tanti, the appellant, who was working along with another of his employee, namely, Abhijit Mura, killed Abhijit Mura and ran away. Based on the aforesaid FIR, the investigation was launched. The appellant surrendered before the police. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed and accordingly, the appellant was committed for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat and the following charges were framed against him:

“That you, on or about on 21/07/2012 at night at New Sonowal Natun Mati Gaon under Mariani P.S. you committed the murder of Abhijit Mura with an intention to cause his death and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and within the cognizance of the court. And I hereby direct that you be tried on the said charge within in cognizance. The charge is read over & explained to the accused, to which, he pleaded not guilty & claimed to be tried.”

4. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined as many as 10(ten) witnesses and also exhibited the relevant materials/documentary evidences. The appellant denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and also took the plea of alibi of being absent from the scene of crime.

5. The learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of the evidence on record, concluded that the appellant was responsible for the murder of the deceased Abhijit Mura and convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, as mentioned above. As can be seen from the judgment and also the records which are available before us, there was no eye witness. The conviction of the appellant was based on circumstantial evidences.

6. Mr. Borgohain, learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant submits that apart from the alleged recovery of the weapon of crime at the instance of the appellant, there is no other evidence at all to implicate the appellant. In fact, all the other evidences which have been taken into consideration by the learned Trial Court were either inadmissible or insufficient to establish the facts which form the chain of evidences and as such, it has been submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

7. Ms. S. Jahan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, by supporting the judgment, has endeavoured to explain the evidences and circumstances which have been used against the appellant.

8. We will now proceed to examine the evidence on record which according to the learned Trial Court, formed the circumstantial evidences and the basis for conviction, for which we will briefly refer to the evidences on record.

9. The informant, perhaps the star witness, is one Hiren Gogoi, who was examined as PW-8 who was the employer of the appellant and the deceased. He deposed that both the deceased Abhijit Mura and the appellant were workers in his timber shop. He stated that the incident occurred in his timber shop which is located about 3 KM away from his re