IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a common intention among co-accused can lead to joint liability for murder, even if not all participants inflicted the fatal blow, provided their actions collectively demonstrate an intent to kill.

JUDGMENT :

(A.D. Choudhury. J.)

1. Heard Mr. BK Das, the learned counsel for the appellants in Crl. A./37/2020. Also heard Ms. R D Mazumdar, learned amicus curiae for the appellant in Crl. A. (J)/ 75/2020. We have also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, the learned Senior counsel & Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State.

2. These two appeals are filed assailing the judgment and order dated 07.11.2019, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Nagaon in Sessions (T-1) Case No. 28 (N)/2018 under Section 302/34 IPC arising out of GR Case No. 97/2018 convicted the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also directed to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

3. The prosecution case as unfolded from the materials available on record is to the effect that on 26.01.2018 at 9 p.m., the appellants Jagannath Patra, Meghnath Patra and Sanjoy Deori @ Sanju Dehori, by means of iron rod and sharp weapon assaulted Karneswar Ganju. As a result, Karneswar Gunju sustained grievous injury and fell unconscious and was undergoing treatment at Guwahati in critical condition. Accordingly, Samaguri PS case No. 57/2018 under Section 325/326/34 IPC was registered. While undergoing treatment, the injured expired in hospital at Guwahati and accordingly, Section 302 IPC was added.

4. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer had submitted charge sheet against the accused/appellants, namely, Jagannath Patra, Meghnath Patra and Sanjoy Deori @ Sanju Dehori under Section 302/34 IPC.

5. Based on the charge sheet submitted by the Investigation Officer, charges were framed against the accused /appellants under Section 302/34 of the IPC. The charges were read out and explained to them but the accused persons/appellants had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the matter went up to trial.

6. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution had examined as many as 12 witnesses, who were cross-examined by the defence. The statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The defence also adduced the evidence of appellant Meghnath Patra as DW-1 and he was also cross-examined by the prosecution.

7. The prosecution case was based on direct evidence of as many as three witnesses viz. PW1, PW2 and PW4. To bring home the charges, the prosecution side had further examined PW5, who reached the place of occurrence and took the victim to hospital. PW5 and PW6 are seizure witnesses of the weapon (lathi) seized from the place of occurrence. Beyond them, the prosecution side had examined the doctor (PW12), who conducted the postmortem examination on the body of the deceased as well as the investigation officer (PW11), and the Scientific Officer, Director of Forensic Science, Assam (PW10) who had submitted charge-sheet.

8. After going through the material available on evidence, the learned trial court had found the accused persons, named hereinabove, as guilty of the offences charged and sentenced each of the them in the manner as indicated hereinabove.

9. Mr. BK Das, the learned counsel for the appellants in Crl. A./37/2020 has assailed the impugned judgment and order primarily on following grounds:

I. The star witness of the prosecution side i.e. PW1 is an interested witness and therefore the learned trial court ought not to have given much emphasis on the testimony of such witness inasmuch as there are major discrepancies in the testimony of the other eye witnesses.

II. The appellant No. 2 (Meghnath Patra) was not named by the PW1 inflicting injury upon the deceased. PW2, who is also an independent witness, had not named the appellant No. 2 in his testimony.

III. The victim died after 7 days of injury at hospital and therefore considering the weapon used (lathi), the appellants ought not to have been convicted under Section 302/34 IPC. He further contends that the postmortem report discl