IMPORTANT POINT
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain without breaks, and extrajudicial confessions require corroboration; benefit of doubt is given to the accused when evidence is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Medhi , J.

The present appeal has been preferred from jail against the judgment and order of conviction dated 31.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 54 (CH) 2018 under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, thereby sentencing the appellant to undergo RI for life and fine of Rs.10,000/. (Rupees Ten Thousand) with default sentence and to suffer further RI for one year.

2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an ejahar on 19.03.2018 by one Sukraj Rai (PW1). It has been stated in the FIR that his father Arjun Rai was killed by the appellant by assaulting him with a bamboo lathi. Based on the aforesaid ejahar, the formal FIR was registered and investigation was done leading to laying of a Charge Sheet. The charges were accordingly framed by the learned Court and on its denial, the trial had begun in which the prosecution had examined 7 nos. of witnesses. The informant was examined as PW1, who had proved the FIR as Exhibit 1 and also the bamboo stick as material Exhibit 1. In his cross- examination, however, PW1 has clarified that he was not an eyewitness to the incident.

3. PW2 is a person who claims to have known both the informant and the accused. He stated that the appellant had confessed before him of killing the deceased with a bamboo stick. He had also proved the material Exhibit 1 wherein he had put his signature. The aspect of extrajudicial confession was reiterated by PW2 even in the cross-examination. PW3, in his deposition had stated that he saw the appellant sitting near the dead body of the father of the informant. He has however stated that nobody told him that the deceased was killed by the appellant.

4. PW4 had stated that he was in a different village when he had got a call and after coming back to the village he was informed by the people of the village about the incident.

5. PW5 claims that he was with the informant at Tezu at the time of the occurrence and he had accompanied the informant back to the village. He has however stated that no one informed him who had killed the deceased.

6. PW6 is the doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination upon the body of the deceased. According to the opinion rendered, the death was caused “due to direct damage of gray matter of left hemisphere causing respiratory distress”. In his cross-examination, the doctor had however deposed that the injuries of the external appearance may be caused by falling on a hard substance.

7. PW7 is the Investigating Officer, who had done the investigation. He had deposed that he had prepared the sketch map during the investigation, recorded statements of the witnesses and collected materials. In his cross- examination however, he has stated that neither PW2 nor PW3 had made statements implicating the appellant with regard to any extrajudicial confession. He had also replied in the cross-examination that he did not submit any authority letter to cause the investigation. This sketch map was however proved as Exhibit 4.

8. Upon completion of the PWs, the materials against the appellant were placed before him in his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC. Against the question no. 2, the appellant had however admitted that he had told the PW2 regarding the involvement in the offence. Similarly, against question no. 6, he admitted of having told the PW3 that his head was not working at that point of time.

9. Based on the aforesaid evidence and materials on record and after the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC, the impugned judgment has been passed which is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.

10. We have heard Dr. B.N. Gogoi, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant. We have also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel & learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondents assisted by Ms. R. Das, learned counsel.

11. D