JUDGMENT :

Manish Choudhury, J.

The instant criminal appeal from Jail under Section 383, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘the CrPC’ or ‘the Code’, for short] is directed against a Judgment and Order dated 12.06.2017 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj at Karimganj [‘the trial court’, for short] in Sessions Case no. 46/2016 [The State of Assam vs. Sri Abdul Sukkur]. By the Judgment and Order dated 12.06.2017, the accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code [IPC] and he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for another period of 2 [two] months.

2. We have heard Mr. L. Devi, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused-appellant and Ms. S.H. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent State of Assam.

3. Ms. Devi, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused-appellant has submitted that out of the 7 [seven] nos. of prosecution witnesses, only one witness, that is, P.W.2 appeared to be present at the place of occurrence in and around the time when the incident had happened. P.W.2 and two other prosecution witnesses, that is, P.W.3 and P.W.5 were declared hostile by the prosecution. Though the prosecution side had cross-examined the three of them, that is, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5, but none of them were confronted with their previous statements so as to prove any contradiction with their testimonies adduced before the court vis-à-vis their previous statements. The learned Amicus Curiae has contended that though the incident had occurred inside the house of the accused-appellant and the deceased but they were not alone as there were other inmates in the house at the relevant time. None of the prosecution witnesses had attributed the act of assault to the accused-appellant and as such, the learned trial court had erred to reach a finding that the prosecution had brought the charge for the offence of murder beyond all reasonable doubts.

4. Ms. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State has submitted that the entire testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who were declared hostile by the prosecution, were not washed off the records altogether. The remaining parts of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses – P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5, who were declared hostile, can definitely be relied upon along with other corroborating evidence if such remaining parts of their testimonies are found creditworthy. In the case in hand, the remaining parts of the testimonies of the hostile witnesses were found reliable enough to consider with other evidence/materials on records and the learned trial court after proper appreciation of the entire evidence/materials on record, has rightly arrived at the finding on the charge of murder. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that from the evidence/materials on record, it has emerged that there was no possibility of any third person to commit the crime. Thus, it was the accused-appellant who had, in all probability, committed the murder of his wife. As such, there is no occasion for interference with the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence and the present appeal is deserved to be dismissed being bereft of any merits.

5. The learned counsel for the parties have drawn attention of the Court to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and have also referred to the documentary evidence that are available on case records of Sessions Case no. 46/2016.

6. We have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence/materials available in the case records of Sessions Case no. 46/2016, in original. We have also gone through the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the parties at the Bar.

7. The accused-appellant had been charged with uxoricide. In order to bring home the charge of murder under Se