Point of Law: Once a plausible version has been put forth by defence at Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination stage, then it would be for prosecution to negate such defence plea.

JUDGMENT :

Suman Shyam, J

1. Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant. We have also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned APP, Assam, appearing for the State/ respondent No.1. None has appeared for the informant/respondent no. 2.

2. The sole appellant Lakhi Swargiary has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 17/12/2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bajali, Pathsala, in connection with Sessions Case No. 08/2018, whereby, the appellant was convicted under Sections 448/302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced inter-alia to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-with default stipulation.

3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to filing of the instant appeal are that the appellant is the son-in-law of the deceased. On 24/12/2017, at around 2-30 p.m., when the deceased Akan Swargiary was sleeping in the house. The appellant/accused caused grievous injury to him by dealing a blow on the head of the victim with a iron hammer, as a result of which, the victim had sustained grievous injuries. Injured Akan Swargiary was taken to Bhawanipur CHC in a critical condition, wherefrom, he was referred to FAAMCH, Barpeta for better treatment. Later on, Akan Swargiary died in the hospital.

4. On 25/12/2017, Sri Bijoy Kumar Swargiary (PW-1) i.e. the nephew of the deceased had lodged an ejahar before the In-charge of Sarupeta Police Out Post reporting the incident. Up on receipt of the ejahar, Sarupeta Out Post GD entry No. 609 dated 24/12/2017 was made and thereafter, the ejahar was forwarded to the Patcharkuchi Police Station for registering a case. Accordingly, Patacharkuchi PS case No. 858/2017 was registered under Section 448/326 of the IPC and the matter was taken up for investigation. However, during the course of investigation and while receiving treatment at the FAAMCH, Barpeta, the victim had succumbed to his injuries on 28/12/2017 and accordingly, Section 302 of IPC was added. Upon completion of investigation, the IO had submitted charge sheet against the accused person, based on which, charges were framed against the accused under Section 448/302 of the IPC. Since the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the matter went up for trial.

5. There is no eye witness in this case and the prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. In order to drive home the charges brought against the accused, the prosecution had examined as many as 11 witnesses including the doctor (PW-9) who had conducted autopsy on the dead body and the I.O. (PW-11). PW-8 Smt. Minati Swargiary is the daughter of the victim and the wife of the accused/appellant. At the relevant time, she was sitting in the Verandah of the house where the incident took place and, therefore, is a key witness in this case. Upon appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution side, more particularly the testimony of PW-8, the learned trial Court had arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the charges brought against the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted for committing the murder of his father-in-law and sentenced as aforesaid.

6. By pointing out the omissions, inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, Mr. Mahanta submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the chain of circumstances so as to establish the charges brought against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. By referring to the evidence adduced by PWs 1, 2 and 3, Mr. Mahanta submits that in view of the inherent contradictions in their testimony, the evidence adduced by these three witnesses were liable to be discarded, in which event, the prosecution case would not have any legs to stand. As such, by giving the benefit of doubt, the appellant deserves to be acquitted in this case.

7. Alternately, Mr. Mahanta has also argued that it has come out from the statem