Point of Law: There is no doubt that convictions can be based on extra-judicial confession but it is well settled that in very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

MALASRI NANDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused/appellant and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar, in connection with Sessions Case No. 103/2017, under Section 302 IPC, whereby the accused appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) only, in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for 6 months.

3. To begin with the prosecution story, it has been revealed from the FIR that the informant, Sumita Kisku lodged an FIR on 14.03.2017, before the In-charge, Tipkai Outpost under Bagribari Police Station, stating inter alia that on 13.03.2017, at about 11:00 pm, her elder sister, Helena Kisku was brutally assaulted with bamboo stick and branch of a tree, as a result of which, her sister died in the house of the accused appellant. On the next day, i.e., on 14.03.2017, she visited the house of her sister and found her dead. Later on, she came to know that her sister was killed by her brother-in-law.

4. On receipt of the complaint, a case vide Tipkai OP GD Entry No. 195 dated 14.03.2017 was recorded and forwarded to the Officer-In-Charge, Bagribari Police Station for registering a case under the proper sections of law. Accordingly on receipt of the written FIR, a case was registered vide Bagribari PS Case No. 25/2017, under Section 302 IPC and investigation was initiated. During investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of witnesses and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and forwarded the dead body to Kokrajhar Civil Hospital for Post-Mortem Examination.

5. During investigation, the husband of the deceased was arrested and he was sent to jail. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused appellant under Section 302 IPC before the Court of learned CJM, Kokrajhar. As the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed accordingly.

6. During trial, on appearance of the accused appellant before the Court of Sessions, charge was framed under Section 302 IPC, which was read over and explained to the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 8 (eight) witnesses. On the other hand, the accused appellant did not adduce any evidence in support of his defence. After completion of trial, the statement of the accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 CrPC and the incriminating evidence adduced by the witnesses were put before him, to which he denied the same and pleaded his innocence. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties, the accused appellant was convicted as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.

8. Learned Amicus Curiae Mr A Tiwari has argued before this Court that there is no eye-witness to the incident. The case is based on circumstantial evidence, but which is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The accused was convicted purely on conjectures and surmises. There are lots of contradictions in the evidence of witnesses regarding presence of the accused appellant in the house at the relevant time of incident. As such, the judgment of conviction cannot be sustainable in law.

9. It is also the submission of the learned Amicus Curiae that the judgment of the learned trial Court is based on extra-judicial confession, which is also not proved beyond reasonable doubt. According to PW-1, the accused appellant confesed his guilt before Sanjay Mardi, Labbi Mardi and Lakshi Ram Saren. But the prosecution has failed to examine those persons, who were present at the time of confessing guilt by the accused/appellant.

10. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant tha