The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on ocular evidence, the assessment of witness credibility, and the importance of corroborative evidence in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Kardak Ete, J.

Heard Mr. N. Hasan, learned Amicus Curiae. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.05.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Hojai, in Sessions Case No. 32/2018 whereby, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302/201, IPC 1860 for committing the murder of Sebaklal Chauhan and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) under Section 302 IPC, 1860 and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 (three) months and rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) under 201, IPC and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 (three) months. The sentences to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that an ejahar was lodged by one Sri Bharatlal Chauhan alleging that on 30.04.2018 at around 9 a.m. his brother Bedilal Chauhan forcefully took away his six years old boy namely, Sebaklal Chauhan from his courtyard from jhulna while he was sleeping. The accused took his minor son near to his vegetable garden of his house and assaulted him on his head with a spade and caused him death and then he fled away from the place of occurrence.

4. On receipt of ejahar, an FIR was registered being Hojai P.S. Case NO.296/2018 under Section 302/201, IPC against the accused appellant.

5. After the completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed against the accused appellant. Learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Hojai. The charges were framed against the accused appellant under Section 302/201 IPC and the content of the charge was read over and explained to the accused/appellantto which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, Prosecution has examined 8 (eight) witnesses. Statement of the accused under 313, Cr.PC was also recorded. Accused appellant has declined to adduce any evidence in his defence.

7. Upon consideration of evidence on record the learned trial court concluded that the prosecution has proved that the accused appellant has committed murder of the victim Sevaklal Chauhan beyond reasonable doubt and also caused disappearance of the evidence and held the accused appellant guilty of offences under sections 301/201, IPC and convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as aforesaid.

8. Mr. N. Hasan, learned Amicus Curie, submits that the case of the prosecution is based solely on ocular evidence. Out of the 8 PWs, 4 (four) of them i.e. PW-1 to PW 4, claimed to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence who were the family members of the deceased child. PW-5 is the Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination, PW-6 and PW-7 are the seizure witnesses and PW-8 is the Investigating Officer.Although in the present case, 4 (four) prosecution witnesses have claimed to be the eye witnesses, yet there are material contradictions in their evidence with regard to the place of occurrence and also their presence at the place of occurrence.

9. Mr. Hasan, learned Amicus Curie further submits that PW-1, the informant, claimed to have seen the occurrence with his own eyes when he rushed to his house. PW-2 who claimed the PW-1 to be his elder brother in his evidence, deposed that he heard hue and cry from the house of Sri Bharat Lal Chauhan (PW-1) regarding taking away of his son forcefully by the accused/appellant. When he came out after hearing the sound of screaming, then he witnessed the occurrence from his own eyes.

10. Mr. N. Hasan, learned Amicus Curie, submits that PW-3, the younger sister of the informant (PW-1) claimed that the act of assaulting the deceased child by the accused appellant was witnessed by her and further when she along with her sister-in-law and mother tried to resist the accused-appellant, he also assaulted