IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on direct evidence, including the testimony of the injured eye witness and medical evidence, to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Suman Shyam, J

1. Heard Mr. B. Bhagawati, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant. We have also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel and APP, Assam, assisted by Ms. N. Chakraborty, learned counsel, appearing for the State.

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the sole appellant assailing the judgement and order dated 07/05/2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar in Sessions case No. 33(S-S)/2015, convicting him under sections 302/326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for committing the murder of deceased Smt. Shanti Munda i.e. the mother of the accused and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-for committing the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC; the accused/appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 (five) years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-for committing the offence punishable under section 326 of the IPC.

3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that on 09/07/2014, an ejahar was lodged with the Officer-in-Charge of Demow Police Station reporting that the appellant Mahesh Munda, under the influence of alcohol, engaged himself in a quarrel with the informant and hacked the informant as well as his wife with a dao, resulting in the death of Shanti Munda. It was also mentioned in the ejahar that the appellant had inflicted cut injuries on the head and left leg of the informant and thereafter, fled away.

4. On receipt of the ejahar dated 09/07/2014, Demow PS Case No. 215/2014 was registered under sections 302/326 of the IPC and the matter was taken up by the Police for investigation. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet under sections 302/326 IPC was submitted against the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge had framed charge against the appellant under sections 302/326 of the IPC. The charge, having been read out and explained to the accused, he had pleaded not guilty and, therefore, the matter went up for trial.

5. During trial, the prosecution had examined as many as 9 (nine) witnesses including 1 (one) eye witness i.e. the PW-2 (informant) to bring home the charge. The defence side did not lead any evidence. In his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused had, however, pleaded innocence.

6. After going through the materials available on record, the learned trial Court has held that the charges brought against the accused person have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, sentenced the appellant in the manner indicated herein above.

7. Mr. M. Bhagawati, learned Amicus Curiae, by referring to the materials on record submits that in view of the discrepancy as regards the actual date and time of occurrence, there is some doubt on the prosecution story. The learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that in view of the evidence of the eye witness (PW-2), it is a fit case for conversion of the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant to one under section 304 Part-II of IPC.

8. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned APP, Assam, has submitted that the prosecution case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, there is no scope of this Court to interfere in the matter.

9. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the materials on record.

10. Since the prosecution case is entirely based on the evidence of the PW-2 Sri Bir Singh Munda, who is an injured eye witness and is a star witness in this case, at the outset, we propose to examine the evidence adduced by the PW-2.

11. As stated above, PW-2 is the father of the accused and the husband of the deceased. He is also an injured eye witness. PW-2 has deposed before the Court that about 3 (three) years ago, his wife Smt. Shanti Munda was hacked to death with a dao by the accused. He has further deposed that the accused had also hacked him, as a result of which, he had sustained injuries on his head and was admitted in Joysagar Civil Hospital for 7 (