JUDGEMENT :

Malasri Nandi, J.

Heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.02.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bijni in Sessions Case No. 62(B)/2018, 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.5,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for two months.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the informant lodged an FIR on 03.09.2009 stating interaliathat on that day at around 5 p.m. while his father and the appellant were roaming around together and thereafter, they went to the house of the accused/appellant, where an altercation took place followed by a quarrel between them. Then the accused/appellant suddenly stabbed his father on various parts of his body with a dagger causing grievous injury on his person as a result of which his father became unconscious and was kept lying in the house of the accused. The accused fled away from the place of occurrence after stabbing his father. Later on, the villagers took his father to Swagat Hospital, Bongaigaon but he died after his arrival at the hospital.

4. On receipt of the complaint, a case was registered vide Bijni P.S. Case No. 216/2019 under Section 302 IPC and the investigation was commenced. During investigation, the investigating officer visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses and seized one dagger. The inquest was done on the dead body of the deceased by the investigating officer and thereafter, the dead body was sent to RNB Civil Hospital, Kokrajhar for postmortem examination. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC before the court of JMFC, Bijni. As the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed accordingly.

5. During trial, charge was framed under Section 302 IPC which was read over and explained to the accused/appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined 12(twelve) witnesses and exhibited six documents and marked one material exhibit i.e a dagger. The appellant did not adduce any witness in support of his case. After completion of the trial, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein incriminating materials found in the evidence of the witnesses were put to him to which he denied the same and pleaded his innocence. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court convicted the accused/appellant as aforesaid. Hence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

7. Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there is no eye witness to the incident. The case is based on circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstance is not complete to convict the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC. It is also submitted that the evidence on record reveals that none of the prosecution witnesses had seen the occurrence but the learned trial court did not give a finding as to why P.W. 9 was declared hostile although only, it was she who found the victim in a speaking condition but within a period of less than one minute, he could not be able to speak. But the learned trial court relied upon the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.7 and convicted the accused/appellant only on their evidence holding the statement of the deceased before them as oral dying declaration.

8. By referring the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Veerpal & Anr. reported in (2022) vol.4 SCC 741, the learned counsel for the accused/appellant has further submitted that there is neither rule of law nor of prudence to the effect that a dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration, thus, a dying de