Point of Law : Provision of Section 313 Cr.P.C. are to bring substance of accusation to accused so that he can explain every circumstance appearing against him during course of evidence and it is mandatory provision which casts a duty on Court to give the opportunity to the accused.

JUDGMENT :

M. Thakuria, J.

Heard Mr. H. Lampu, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, appearing on behalf of the State respondent.

2. This jail appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.12.2021, passed by the learned Session Judge, East Sessions Division, Tezu, Arunachal Pradesh, in Session Case No. 07/(NMS)/2017, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The brief facts of this case is that on 20.09.2016, one Shri Barna Kaharia lodged an F.I.R. against an unknown person with an allegation that his younger sister, Estila Kaharia, aged about 14 years, gone to the paddy field to harvest after her school on 19.09.2016. But she did not return home and thereafter it was informed that dead body of his sister was found with multiple cut injuries on her throat and forehead and was lying inside the toko paat garden, which is about 20 mtrs away from the house of the informant. Accordingly, a case has been registered under Mahadevpur Police Station, being Mahadevpur P.S. Case No. 25/2016, under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, against an unknown person.

4. The Officer-In-Charge himself investigated the case and during investigation, he visited the place of occurrence, which was inside a jungle area of toko plants, and recovered the dead body with several cut injuries on her throat, forehead and backside of the skull and accordingly, the dead body was sent for post-mortem. However, as per the I.O., due to heavy rainfall, the wearing apparels of the deceased got wet and hence no semen stain could be seen on her panty and private part. Thereafter, the I.O. collected the postmortem report, wherein the doctor opined that the death is homicidal in nature. However, the doctor did not find any injury on her private part and no vaginal discharge or blood stain was detected on the private part of the deceased. It was also opined by the doctor that the victim was not pregnant. During investigation, the accused was traced out on 21.09.2016 and during interrogation, the accused revealed that since last 3 (three) years, he was having sexual physical relationship with the deceased girl without the knowledge of their family members. But when it was informed to him by the deceased that she might be pregnant as she is having some menstruation problem, as per his confession, the accused asked the victim to come on the day of incident inside the toko garden to have sex with him and instead of having any sexual intercourse with her, the accused killed the said girl with a sharp weapon. Accordingly, the accused was sent to record his confessional statement before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class as he was ready to give his confessional statement voluntarily. The I.O. also seized the murdered weapon, which is a sharp dao, in presence of all seizure witnesses, which was kept hidden in the house of the accused person. The blood stain was also found on the seized dao. Accordingly, it was sent to FSL for examination and after obtaining the report from the FSL and also after examining the other available witnesses, the I.O. filed the Charge-Sheet against the present accused appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, at the time of filing the Charge-Sheet, the FSL report could not be collected by the I.O. and hence, a prayer was made to file Supplementary Charge-Sheet after obtaining the FSL report. Accordingly, the FSL report was obtained and Supplementary Charge-Sheet was filed before the Court.

5. The prosecution examined as many as 7 numbers of witnesses including the informant, the Investigating Officer and the Medical Officer. However, the prosecution could not examine the FSL expert in support of the case. After completion of the evidences and hearing the arguments put forwarded by the learned counsels for both sides, the learned Session Judge,