IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and in the absence of reliable evidence, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.

JUDGMENT :

K.R.Surana, J

Heard Mr. B.C. Das, learned legal aid counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State.

2. This appeal from jail has been received from jail as per the provisions of section 383 Cr.P.C. This appeal under section 374 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and sentence dated 17.12.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Biswanath Chariali, Sonitpur in Sessions Case No. 168/2014, arising out of G.R. Case No.289/2013, corresponding to Behali P.S. Case No. 73/2013, by which the sole appellant was convicted for committing offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month.

3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 25.04.2013, the complainant, namely, Smti. Sukurmoni Nayak had lodged an ejahar with the In-Charge of Bargang Outpost under Behali P.S. to the effect that on 24.04.2013, at about 5.00 PM, the appellant, namely, Rajen Nayak had killed her 26 year old son, namely, Nathu Nayak by hacking him with a daoover the a catapult and she had prayed to take necessary action against the appellant. The said ejahar was sent for registration to the Officer-in-Charge of Behali P.S. Accordingly, Behali P.S. Case No. 73/2013, under Section 302 IPC was registered and the investigation was entrusted to Rajib Gohain, I/C Bargang Outpost.

4. In course of investigation, the I/O had prepared the seizure list, collected the post-mortem report and on finding prima facie case made out against the appellant, charge-sheet was submitted on 30.06.2013. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Biswanath Chariali, on finding that the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the case for trial before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Biswanath Chariali. After complying with the prescribed formalities, charges were read over and explained to the appellant on 29.08.2014, to which the appellant had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, the prosecution had examined 7 (seven) witnesses, namely, Smti. Sukurmoni Nayak (PW-1), Sri Puna Nayak (PW-2), Smti. Saraswati Nayak (PW-3), Sri Bhaben Mali (PW-4), Miss Nirmali Bhuyan (PW-5), Dr. Basanta Kr. Borah (PW-6), and Sri Rajib Gohain (I.O) (PW-7). The prosecution witnesses had exhibited the following documents, viz. post-mortem report (Ext-1), seizure list (Ext-2), Charge-sheet (Ext-3), and dao (M.Ext-1). The incriminating materials were brought to the notice of the appellant during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which was denied by the appellant claiming the allegation to be false. However, the appellant had declined to give any defence evidence.

6. The learned trial Court has formulated the point of determination as follows:-

“Whether the accused on the day of the alleged occurrence committed murder of Nathu Nayak by intentionally causing his death?”

7. The learned Trial Court, upon appreciating the evidence on record, found the evidence of PW-4 intact as he had witnessed the accused-appellant striking the deceased with a dao on his back, which had supported the injury no. 2 as found by the PW-6. Moreover, as per PW-6, the injuries he found on the deceased resulted in his death. The inconsistent evidence of PW-7 with PW-4 as regard to the injuries sustained in the back of the deceased was not held to be fatal to the case of the prosecution if otherwise, the evidence of PW4, the sole eye witness is found to be reliable and dependable. It was also held that all the witnesses had testified against the appellant holding him to be responsible for the offence. Moreover, the evasive answers given by the appellant in course of his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. was found sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of committing the offence by taking aid of the provisions of s