Point of Law : Approver is a competent witness but position in law is fairly well settled that on uncorroborated testimony of approver, it would be risky to base conviction, particularly, in respect of a serious charge like murder.

JUDGMENT :

Malasri Nandi, J.

1. Heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant as well as Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel and Addl. P.P. appearing for the State assisted by Mr. J. Das.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Sessions Case No. 150(J-J) of 2015, convicting the accused/appellant under Section 302/392 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6(six) months under Section 302 IPC. The accused/appellant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6(six) months under Section 392 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the informant Beni Prasad Beria lodged an FIR before the in-charge, Deberapar police out-post under Mariani P.S. on 23.09.2014 stating inter-alia that one Manikchand Sarma had been staying as a tenant in his land at staff line of Bhelaguri Tea Estate. On 21.09.2014 at about 10.00 P.M., when Manikchand Sarma was sleeping inside his shop, some miscreants entered into his shop by breaking the back door of the shop and killed Manikchand Sarma by assaulting him with a piece of iron rod. Thereafter, the miscreants also had stolen away money from the shop.

4. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered vide Mariani P.S. Case No. 219/2014 under Section 396 IPC and investigation was started. During investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of the witnesses and seized some articles like one iron rod etc from the place of occurrence. Inquest was done on the dead body of the deceased and subsequently, the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. The postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted at Jorhat Medical College and Hospital. As per the postmortem report, the death of the deceased was due to coma as a result of head injury. All the injuries were antemortem caused by blunt weapon which was homicidal in nature.

5. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet was submitted before the Court of SDJM, Titabar of Jorhat district under Section 396 IPC against the accused/appellant. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed accordingly for trial.

6. During trial, charge was framed against the accused/appellant under Sections 302/392 IPC which was read over and explained to the accused/appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be trial.

7. During trial, the prosecution examined 8(eight) witnesses and marked 8(eight) exhibits and 3(three) material exhibits. On the other hand, the defence did not choose to adduce any evidence. After completion of trial, the statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, and the incriminating materials available in the evidence put before the appellant wherein he denied the same.

8. The accused/appellant stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C that he had committed no offence. Mangal Majhi is the uncle of Biresh Majhi (P.W-7). Mangal Majhi and Mathu Majhi (P.W-2) are brothers and they used to live in the same campus. Mathu’s father had two wives and number of children from them. To help their families his mother had given up a job in the tea garden. Mangal Majhi had falsely implicated his uncle Jugesh Majhi and now his nephew Biresh Majhi has falsely implicated him. Sniffer dog had gone to the house of Mangal Majhi only and not to his house. P.W-7 Biresh Majhi himself was a salesman in the shop of the deceased Manik Chand Sharma and he and Mangal used to visit the shop of the deceased.

9. It was urged by learned Amicus Curiae Smt. B. Sharma that P.W-7 who accompanied the accused/appellant on the day of incident i