JUDGMENT :

Susmita Phukan Khaund, J.

Heard Mr. B. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior counsel as well as Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam assisted by Mr. A. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent No.1.

2. This is an appeal from jail.

3. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment dated 11.10.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri in Sessions Case No.97(U)/2015 arising out of GR Case No.817/2014 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC/ Sections 25(1-A) and 27(2) of the Arms Act but acquitted of the charge under Section 201 of IPC. The appellant was awarded various sentences to undergo ranging from Life Imprisonment for offence under Section 302 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-only in default simple imprisonment for 6(six) months, Simple Imprisonment for 5 (five) years for the offence under Section 25(1-A) of Arms Act and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-only in default Simple Imprisonment for 3 (three) months and further Simple Imprisonment for 7 (seven) years for the offence under Section 27(2) of Arms Act and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-only, in default Simple Imprisonment for 3 (three) months.

4. The case of the appellant is primarily based on the ground that there was no eye witness of the incident and conviction of the appellant was purely based on so-called dying declaration which was recorded after a long period of 21(twenty one) days which also has not been corroborated by other evidences and as such, it was impermissible to rely on such uncorroborated statement, recorded after such delay to convict the appellant under Section 302 of IPC.

5. In order to appreciate the contentions raised, it may be apposite to briefly refer to the facts which have emerged in course of the trial. The criminal proceeding was initiated against the appellant after an F.I.R. was lodged on 29.07.2014 by the mother-in-law of the deceased to the effect that the deceased was shot by the appellant with a pistol causing bullet injury on the stomach of the deceased and she was evacuated to the hospital for treatment. Accordingly, on the basis of the said F.I.R., a Police case being Dimakuchi P.S. Case No.60/2014 was registered on 29.07.2014 under Sections 326/207 IPC and Sections 25(1-A) and 27 of the Arms Act. After the injured underwent treatment, she later succumbed to her injury and died on 16.01.2015. Thereupon, the appellant was subsequently charged under Section 302 of IPC.

6. From the above, it appears that the deceased succumbed during the course of investigation after the initial F.I.R. was lodged on 29.07.2014. On completion of the investigation, the appellant was charged on the following offences,

Firstly, that on or about 27.07.2014 at No.1 Uttar Dimakuchi under Dimakuchi Police Station, the appellant had committed murder by causing the death of Joysna Mandal and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC;

Secondly, that on the same day, time and place, after committing the murder of Jyosna Mandal he concealed her dead body with the intention of screening himself from legal punishment and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 IPC;

Thirdly, on the same day, time and place, the appellant possessed fire arms and acted in contravention of Section 7 of the Arms Act and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 25(1-A) of Arms Act;

Fourthly, on the same day, time and place, the appellant used the arms and ammunitions and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 27 of Arms Act.

7. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined as many as 14 (fourteen) witnesses. The appellant took the plea of denial and claimed that he was falsely implicated. Thus, no specific plea was taken by the appellant except for denial.

8. The Trial Court, however, after considering the evidences on record, convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and Sections 25(1-A) & 27 of