Point of Law: It is well settled that in case based on circumstantial evidence, circumstances from which an inference of guilt sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established, and that those circumstances must be conclusive in nature unerringly pointing towards guilt of accused.

JUDGMENT :

KARDAK ETE, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned Amicus Curiae representing the appellant. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State.

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the convict accused of murder under Section 302 IPC, 1860 against the judgment and order dated 27.06.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong in Sessions Case No. 10 of 1999, wherein the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) and in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 (six) months.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 14.07.1997, one Shri Nagen Saikia lodged an Ejahar before the Borpathar Police Outpost under Bokajan Police Station stating that on 13.07.1997 at about 7:00 PM the accused, Shri Balia Mura hacked his nephew, Manik Saikia to death at his paddy field in No. 1 KathKatiya Village field over the issue of blocking an irrigation channel to the paddy field. The accused after committing the offence surrendered at Borpathar Police Outpost. On receipt of the Ejahar, the I/C, Borpathar Police Outpost made G.D. Entry vide No. 214 dated 14.07.1997 and forwarded the same to the Officer-in-Charge, Bokajan Police Station. On receipt of this Ejahar, the Officer-in-Charge, Bokajan Police Station registered FIR being PS Case No. 125 of 1997 under Section 302 of IPC. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the Charge-Sheet against the accused Shri Balia Mura under Section 302 IPC vide No. 70 dated 21.08.1997.

4. The concerned Magistrate has committed the matter to the Court of Sessions (to the then Deputy Commissioner, Karbi Anglong) for trial vide dated 26.02.1999. Accordingly, following the procedure the Sessions Court framed the charge against the appellant Shri Balia Mura on 26.05.2000.

5. During investigation confessional statement of accused appellant was recorded under section 164 of CrPC, 1973.

6. In the course of the trial and to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 10 (ten) witnesses including the Investigating Officer and the Doctor. On completion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, 1973. Defence had declined to adduce any evidence and the plea of the defence was of only denial.

7. Upon consideration of the evidences and the materials available on record, the Sessions Court has found the appellant Shri Balia Mura guilty under Section 302 of the IPC and convicted him and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) and in default Simple Imprisonment for 6 (six) months.

8. Mr. A. Ahmed, learned Amicus Curiae submits that the learned Trial Court rightly discarded the statement of the accused allegedly recorded under Section 164, CrPC as the said statement cannot be relied on due to the reasons that the statement of the accused was not recorded by following the provision of section 164, CrPC. Therefore, the said statement can neither be basis of conviction nor any facts stated therein can be used to form chain of circumstances. The said statement was recorded on 16.07.1997 but the formalities, which is required to be followed as per Section 164 (2), CrPC was done on 17.07.1997 which was apparent from the dates mentioned therein. The learned Amicus Curiae, while referring to the provision of Section 164 (2), CrPC submits that the said provision is very clear about the requirement to be followed before recording the confessional statement and non-compliance of the same goes to the root of the matter of jurisdiction in recording such statement by the Magistrate. He submits that there is no order in the record of the case to show that the accused was produced for recording his confessional statement on 17.07.1997, which is clearly admitted by Jyoti Prasad Bordoloi/PW-10, who exhibited the alleg