Point of Law: Object of Section 165 of Evidence Act and Section 311 of Cr.PC is to enable Court to arrive at truth, irrespective of fact that prosecution or defence has failed to produce some evidence, which is necessary for a just and proper disposal of case.

JUDGMENT :

M.Zothankhuma, J.

Heard Mr. B. Prasad, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 25.03.2019 passed by the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Kokrajhar in Session Case No. 179/2018, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to suffer imprisonment for one year.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that an FIR dated 02.05.2018 was submitted by the informant/Prosecution Witness-1 (PW-1), to the effect that when her elder brother Hopna Hembrom went to visit their relative Smt. Malho Mardi (PW-2) on 29.04.2018, the appellant dragged her brother out from Smt. Malho Mardi’s house at around 11pm /12’ midnight. He thereafter assaulted her elder brother and stomped on his chest with his boot. He also kicked his brother’s head, as a result of which his brother died at 5 am on 01.05.2018. In pursuant to the FIR, Kokrajhar Police Station Case No. 192/2018 under Sections 448/325/302 IPC was registered.

4. After investigation of the case was completed, the Investigating Officer submitted his charge sheet, on having found a prima facie case against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. Charge was framed by the learned Trial Court against the appellant under Section 302 IPC, to which the appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. During the trial proceedings, seven prosecution witnesses were examined by the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, wherein he took the stand that he did not beat up the deceased and he was not involved in the death of the deceased.

5. The learned Trial Court on considering the evidence adduced, came to a finding that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 established beyond all reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased had occurred, due to being stomped mercilessly on the chest and face by the deceased with a spiked boot. Consequently, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced accordingly.

6. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that the impugned Judgment has to be set aside, as no document was exhibited by the prosecution during trial. Further, the Investigating Officer of the case was not examined, thereby denying an opportunity to the appellant to contradict the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Amicus Curiae thus prays that the matter should be remanded back to the learned Trial Court, for the purpose of exhibiting the documents and questioning the concerned witnesses with regard to the same, besides examining the Investigating Officer.

7. The learned Amicus Curiae also submits that all documents including the FIR, Charge Sheet, Post-Mortem Examination Report, Seizure List, Inquest Report etc. are relevant and necessary documents, which the prosecution has to exhibit during trial. In support of the above submission, the learned Amicus Curiae has relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of State of Mizoram Vs. Abdul Jalil & Others, reported in (2008) 1 JLT 610. He also submits that in the absence of exhibiting documents, such as Post-Mortem Report etc, it cannot be proved that the deceased had died due to the injuries sustained by him, which had been discovered at the time of his Post-Mortem Examination. In this regard, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shivnath Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2008 15 SCC 735.

8. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, on the other hand submits that there is nothing in the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, to show that the witnesses were contradicted, in relation to the statements made by them under Section 161 Cr.PC. As such, the evidence of the witnesses could not have been contradicted even if the I.O was a witness. The Addl. Public Prosecutor also submits that the