IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on eyewitness testimony and a valid confessional statement, affirming the importance of fair trial standards.

JUDGMENT :

(Suman Shyam, J)

1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.12.2017/05.12.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Diphu, Karbi Anglong in Sessions Case No.61/1988 (old)/242/17 (new) convicting the sole appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for committing the murder of Jiten Saikia and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another six months.

2. The prosecution story, in a nutshell, is that on 10.05.1988, at about 1-45 p.m. the appellant Ganesh Tanti had hacked the deceased Jiten Saikia with a sharp dao on the neck causing his instantaneous death. On 10.05.1988 itself, the brother-in-law of the deceased viz., Sri Manik Borgohain (PW-2) had lodged a written ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge of the Bokajan Police Station, Bokajan informing him about the incident. Based on the aforesaid ejahar, Bokajan P.S. Case No.111/1988 was registered under Section 302 of the IPC. Thereafter, the police took up the case for investigation. During investigation, confessional statement of the accused/appellant was recorded by the Magistrate. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted under section 302 of the IPC. Since the appellant had pleaded not guilty, he was subjected to trial. Accordingly, charge was framed against the appellant/accused under section 302 of the IPC.

3. During the course of trial, the prosecution side had examined as many as 12 witnesses including the Investigating Officer, who had conducted investigation in connection with the police case and submitted charge sheet, as PW-9. PW-5 was examined as an eye-witness to the occurrence. After recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The appellant, however, did not adduce any evidence in his defence.

4. On conclusion of trial, based on the evidence available on record as well as the confessional statement of the accused/appellant exhibited as Ext-5, the learned trial court had convicted the appellant for committing the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by his conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and the consequent jail sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him by the learned Court below, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

5. We have heard Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State.

6. As noted above, the prosecution had examined Sri Purna Chandra Gogoi (PW-5) as an eye-witness to the occurrence. PW-5 was working as a security guard in the factory of Cement Corporation of India (CCI) Ltd. at Bokajan when the incident took place. He has deposed that on 10.05.1988, when he had come to attend his duties at the factory in his motorcycle, he saw the accused, also a worker in the CCI, cut the deceased on the neck with a dao and the victim fell down on the road from his bicycle. He could recognize both the accused and the victim. He had raised ‘hulla’ saying “catch, catch” asking people to catch hold of the accused but he ran away waving the dao in the air by shouting that he is yet to avenge another three persons. PW-5 has also stated that after the incident the accused had boarded a rickshaw and proceeded towards Bokajan Police Station and surrendered before the police. Cross-examination of PW-5 was declined.

7. PW-1, Smti. Puspa Saikia is the wife of the deceased. She did not see the occurrence but on hearing the ‘hulla’ she came out of her house and heard that her husband had been killed. The neighbours had told her that accused Ganesh Tanti had killed her husband.

8. PW-2, Sri Manik Borgohain is the brother-in-law of the deceased and also the informant in this case. He has deposed th