JUDGMENT :

Michael Zothankhuma, J.

Heard Dr. BN Gogoi, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

2. The appellant has put to challenge the Judgment and Order dated 14.09.2017, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Sessions Case No. 33(J-T)/2017, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, with a fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that an FIR dated 23.11.2016 was submitted to the Officer-In-Charge, Mariani Police Station by PW-1, who is the father of the appellant/convict. The FIR states that at about 12:30 pm on 22.11.2016, the informant’s son Kishore Chawra cut the neck of his wife Pinki Chawra with a dao in his house, which killed her. The informant also states that he informed the Police about the incident and immediately handed over his son to the Police. Pursuant to the FIR, Mariani P.S. Case No. 224/2016, under Section 302 IPC was registered on 23.11.2016.

On a perusal of the case diary, it is seen that the Police were informed of the incident of the killing of the appellant’s wife, by mobile on 22.11.2016 at 1:20 pm and accordingly GD Entry No. 655 was registered by the Police on 22.11.2016. The seizure list shows that seizure of the weapon used in the crime, i.e., dao, was seized on 22.11.2016 at 2:00 pm in pursuance to GD Entry No. 655 dated 22.11.2016.

4. As stated earlier, the FIR was lodged on 23.11.2016, the next day and consequently a new GD Entry was given on the basis of the FIR filed on 23.11.2016, wherein the new GD Entry was numbered as 672.

5. The Investigating Officer, after investigating the case filed a charge-sheet, having found a prima facie case under Section 302 IPC against the appellant. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant on 24.03.2017, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The learned Trial Court thereafter examined 10 (ten) prosecution witnesses and after examining the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. came to a finding that the appellant was guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC. The appellant was accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months.

7. The learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submits that there is no eye-witness and/or direct evidence showing that the appellant had committed the offence of murdering his wife. He also submits that there is no circumstantial evidence to prove that the crime was committed by the appellant. He also submits that the alleged weapon used for committing the crime, i.e., the dao had not been sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). He also submits that there are discrepancies in the evidence of the Prosecution Witnesses, inasmuch as, the dao has been stated to be found hanging in the bamboo fencing as per the evidence of PW-4, while the evidence of PW-2 is that he saw the dao lying in the courtyard.

8. The learned Amicus Curiae also submits that there is contradiction in the evidence given by the Prosecution Witnesses, with regard to the presence of the appellant at the scene of the crime, as PW-2 states in his evidence that on entering the house of the appellant, he found that the villagers had tied up the appellant in the house, while PW-3 states that he did not find the appellant at the relevant point of time. He also submits that while some Prosecution Witnesses have stated that the dao was stained in blood, PW-4 in his cross-examination has stated that the dao was clean and there was no blood mark.

9. The learned Amicus Curiae thus submits that in view of the discrepancy and contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses, coupled with the fact that there were no eyewitnesses or circumstantial evidence connecting