IMPORTANT POINT
A confession can be the sole basis for conviction if found voluntary and truthful, despite the absence of Legal Aid.

JUDGMENT :

(S.K. Medhi, J)

The present appeal has been preferred from jail against a judgment and order dated 24.08.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu in Sessions Case No. 30/2011 (G.R. Case No. 613/2006 and Howraghat P.S. Case No. 139/2006. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted with R.I. for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) u/s 302 of IPC , in default, R.I. for 1 year only and further R.I. for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- i/d R.I. for 1 year u/s 201 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The appeal involves the murder of the wife of the appellant.

3. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar by PW1 on 05.12.2006. It was stated that the deceased, who was his niece was married to the appellant about 20 years back and was living with him along with three children. However, on 09.06.2006, it was informed that the niece had eloped with someone else and after making a search, her whereabouts could not be found. Thereafter, from certain source, it was learnt that the appellant had confessed that on the same date, i.e. 09.06.2006 at about 10 p.m., he had killed the deceased and threw her into the Sonarijan River. The Ejahar was lodged in the Dokmoka Outpost, whereafter the formal FIR was registered under the jurisdictional Howraghat Police Station. The investigation was accordingly made and after filing of the formal Charge Sheet, the charges were framed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Karbi Anglong under Section 302 and 201 of the IPC. It may be mentioned that the said order was passed at a time when the Judiciary was not separated from the Executive and the powers were entrusted to the Deputy Commissioner to act as the Sessions Judge.

4. The prosecution had adduced evidence through 4 (four) numbers of witnesses. PW 1 is the informant who had deposed that the police had caught the appellant and enquired about the matter. He has also stated that the appellant had surrendered and confessed about killing the deceased. The Ejahar was proved by him as Ext 1. PW 2 is a co-villager who had deposed that the appellant had confessed before him regarding his involvement in the killing of the deceased. PW 3 is the Magistrate before whom the appellant had made a confessional statement. He has deposed that necessary caution was given to the appellant including a reasonable time for reflection. He has also stated that during such time for reflection, the appellant was kept under the supervision of office peon and there was no involvement of the police. The confessional statement was proved by him as Ext. 4. PW 4 is the Investigating Officer who had deposed of receiving the Ejahar on 05.12.2006 and making the investigation, drawing of sketch map and filing of the Charge Sheet.

5. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the circumstances against the appellant were put to him and his statement was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. It may however be noted that on a specific question regarding the confession, the appellant had admitted of making such confession. Based on the aforesaid evidence and the materials on record including the confessional statement, the conviction has been made which is the subject matter of challenge.

6. We have heard Shri A. Ahmed, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. We have also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Sr. Counsel & Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam assisted by Ms. E. Murtaza, learned counsel.

7. Shri Ahmed, the learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that apart from the confessional statement, there are no other materials to implicate the appellant.

It is submitted that the alleged occurrence would be of 09.06.2006 and after about 6 months, the Ejahar was lodged which itself would be fatal to the case of the prosecution. He submits that such delay is wholly unexplained and therefore there was no foundation at all to proceed in the matter. He has also submitted that there was neither recovery of any body of the deceased nor any