JUDGMENT

Malasri Nandi, J.

Heard Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Mr. D. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Anurag Goswami challenging the judgment and order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup(M), Guwahati in Sessions Case No.258/2015, whereby the accused/appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 6(six) months.

3. The prosecution case is that the informant Mon Mohan Barman lodged an FIR dated 26.11.2012 stating inter alia that on 25.11.2012 at about 6.30 p.m. while his uncle Khagen Barman was on duty at S. Tel office, at Monal Tower under Dispur police Station, the Accused/appellant Anurag Goswami along with another person had assaulted him with steel strip and other sharp weapon inside the said office, thereby injuring him grievously in various parts of his body. Immediately, his uncle was admitted to Guwahati Medical College and Hospital(GMCH) with the help of 108 service but on the next date i.e. on 26.11.2012, his uncle died in GMCH during treatment.

4. On receipt of the complaint, a case was registered vide Dispur P.S. Case No. 2537/2012 under Sections 448/302/34 IPC and the investigation has been commenced. During investigation, the statement of the victim was recorded but subsequently, he died. The investigating officer also recorded the statement of other witnesses, visited the place of occurrence and seized the weapon of offence from the place of occurrence and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused/appellant Anurag Goswami and another person Bimal Bonia under Section 302/34 IPC before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M). As the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case has been committed accordingly.

5. During trial, the learned Sessions Court has framed charge under Section 302/34 IPC against the accused/appellant Anurag Goswami and other accused Bimal Bonia which was read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the guilt of the accused persons, ten witnesses were examined by prosecution and marked 14 exhibits before the trial court and three material exhibits. On the other hand, the accused/appellant also adduced one witness in support of his case. After completion of trial, the statement of both accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating materials found in the evidence of the witnesses were put before them to which they denied the same. According to them, they have been falsely implicated in this case. After hearing the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court has convicted the accused/appellant Anurag Goswami as aforesaid but acquitted the other accused Bimal Bonia. Hence, this appeal filed by the accused/appellant.

7. Mr. R.P. Sharma, learned Senior counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned trial court failed to consider the evidence of P.W.9 in its proper perspective who was attached to Dispur Police Station at the relevant time of incident and recorded the statement of the deceased in the place of occurrence. The learned trial court also failed to consider that the witness admitted in his cross-examination that he had recorded the statement of the victim(Ext.-13) but the case was not registered. He received information at about 7 p.m. and he recorded the statement of the deceased at 8 p.m. According to P.W.9, at that time, in the hospital, the deceased was in conscious state of mind and in the hospital, definitely there would have been doctor and nurses also whose signatures ought to have