IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of collectively considering the testimonies of eye-witnesses and the admissibility of evidence in establishing guilt in a criminal case.

JUDGMENT :

Suman Shyam, J.

Heard Mr. D.K. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing for the sole appellant. We have also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State.

2. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.12.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Dipur in Sessions Case No.32/1998 convicting the present appellant and one Ram Naresh Chauhan (since deceased) for committing offences under Sections 447/302/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for committing the offence under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for committing the offence under Section 447 IPC and also to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for committing the offence under Section 323 IPC. The conviction of both the accused persons was with the assistance of Section 34 of the IPC.

3. The prosecution case, as unfolded from the materials on record, is to the effect that on 30.07.1995, Smti. Saraswati Devi (PW-1) i.e. the wife of the deceased, had lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge, Kheroni Police Station informing that on the previous night, at around 8:00 P.M., the co-villagers, viz., 1) Prem Chauhan, son of Ram Naresh Chauhan, 2) Nandaji Chauhan, son of Ram Naresh Chauhan, 3) Lakhan Chauhan, son of Oza Chauhan, 4) Rakho, son of Oza Chauhan and 5) Ram Naresh Chauhan, (father’s name not known), had killed her husband Shivji Chauhan by hacking him on his neck with a ‘dao’ while he was sitting in the courtyard.

4. On receipt of the ejahar, Kheroni P.S. Case No.50/1995 was registered under Sections 302/34 IPC and the matter was taken up by the police for investigation. On completion of investigation, Police submitted charge-sheet in connection with Kheroni P.S. Case No.50/1995 against five accused persons i.e. Lakshman Chauhan, Nandaji Chauhan, Ram Naresh Chauhan, Prem Chauhan and Rakho Chauhan under Sections 147/148/149/302/326/447 of the IPC. It appears from the materials on record that accused Rakho Chauhan was shown as an absconder.

5. On receipt of summons accused Nandaji Chauhan, Ram Naresh Chauhan, Prem Chauhan and Lakshman Chauhan had appeared before the Court. The learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu had framed charge against the accused persons for committing the offences under Sections 147/148/149/447/302/326 of the IPC. Since the accused persons had pleaded not guilty, hence, the matter went up for trial.

6. It further appears from the materials on record that during the stage of trial accused Nandaji Chauhan had expired. Since accused Prem Chauhan was declared as an absconder, hence, trial proceeded against the present appellants viz., Sri Lakshman Chauhan and Ram Naresh Chauhan.

7. The prosecution case was based on direct evidence of as many as 5 eye witnesses viz., PW-1, PW-7, PW-8, PW-10 and PW-12. In order to bring home the charge the prosecution side had examined 12 witnesses in total, including the doctor (PW-5) who had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased as well as the Investigating Officer (PW-6), who had submitted charge-sheet. However, the Investigating Officer (I.O.), who had conducted investigation has not been examined as a prosecution witness. After going through the materials available on record, the learned trial Court had found the two accused persons, named herein above, who were subjected to trial, as guilty of the offences charged and sentenced each of them in the manner indicated herein above.

8. It has been brought to our notice that during the pendency of appeal being Criminal Appeal(J) No.48/2019, preferred by co-accused Ram Naresh Chauhan against the judgment and order dated 21.12.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu in Sessions Case No.32/2018, the appellant had expired, as