IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimony can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

(S.K. Medhi, J)

The instant appeal has been preferred from Jail against the judgment dated 17.06.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu in Sessions Case No. 309/2017 (New)/Sessions Case No. 97/2010 (Old). By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted u/s 323/302 of the IPC with R.I. for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, R.I. for 1 year and further a fine of Rs. 1000/- u/s 323 IPC in default, R.I. for 3 months.

2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 15.12.2009 by the PW4. It was stated that on the previous night at about 11.30 PM when the informant along with the deceased who was his maternal uncle were going to his house at Kheroni, the appellant had suddenly punched him on the right eye and thereafter assaulted the deceased with sharp weapon causing grievous injuries, as a result of which the deceased had expired in the Diphu Civil Hospital. Based on the Ejahar, an F.I.R. was registered and after completion of the investigation, formal charge sheet was filed. The charges were accordingly framed and on denial thereof the trial had begun.

3. In the trial, the prosecution had adduced evidence through 8 nos. of PWs and the informant was the PW4. The PW1 and PW2 are co-villagers who are hearsay witnesses. PW3 had stated that his house was near the place of occurrence and hearing a commotion, he had gone to the place of occurrence which was about 200 metres and found the deceased, who was his brother-in-law lying on the ground beside the kaccha road in a critical condition. Then the PW3 had called the people residing nearby and brought the deceased to his house and whereafter by means of an ambulance, the PW3 along with 3 boys of the village had taken the deceased to the Diphu Hospital. The deceased had succumbed to his injuries at about 3 am. Meanwhile, the matter was informed to the police who had come in the morning and got the postmortem done. He has deposed that later he had heard from the people of the village that it was the appellant who had assaulted the deceased to his death. In his cross-examination, he clarifies that he was not a witness to the incident and the accused and the deceased had cordial relationship and there was no quarrel.

4. PW4 is the informant is the nephew of the deceased. He deposed that while coming with the deceased at about 11 PM on that day the appellant had punched him on his right eye and thereafter had assaulted the deceased with a lathi on his head. He had deposed that thereafter he came to his uncle’s house when his uncle had come out and heard the incident. Thereafter he with his uncle and aunt had come to the place of occurrence with an earthen lamp. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the Diphu Government hospital by a 108 Ambulance which was called by the villagers. He deposed that he had also come to the hospital as he has sustained an injury and at about 3 am, the deceased who was his maternal uncle had expired and postmortem was done. He had identified the appellant in the Court. In his cross- examination, PW 4 however clarifies that there was no quarrel with the appellant and that there was darkness at the place of occurrence.

5. It may be mentioned that on 21.12.2009, the informant who had deposed as PW4 had got his statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. In the said statement he had stated that the appellant had assaulted the deceased with a dao several times whereafter he had come to his uncle’s house, namely, Fanilal Difusa (PW3) when his aunt had woke him up and all of them had gone out looking for the deceased who was found grievously injured in his face and head with cuts of dao. Some of his teeth were also found lying on the ground whereafter he was taken to the Diphu Civil Hospital by a 108 Ambulance.

PW 5 is the brother of the deceased and is a hearsay witness which is clarified in his cross examination. In the said cross-examination he had also deposed that the deceased and the appellant h