The court affirmed that eyewitness testimony, when consistent and corroborated, can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, even in the absence of forensic evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(S.P. Khaund, J.)

Heard Mr. B. Prasad, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam assisted by learned counsel Ms. R. Das.

Background facts :-

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barpeta, in connection with Sessions Case No. 188/2016 (arising out of G.R. Case No. 7091/2014) convicting Babul Ali @ Babu (hereinafter also referred to as the appellant or the accused) under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) with default stipulations.

3. The genesis of the case is that on 27.10.2014 at about 2:30 pm, the 8 year old victim Minuwara Begum was playing in front of the appellant’s house, when suddenly the appellant attacked her with a sharp weapon causing several injuries on her body. Minuwara (hereinafter referred to as the deceased or the victim) was shifted to Barpeta Hospital for treatment but unfortunately, she died on her way to Hospital. The appellant went into his house for shelter but the villagers surrounded his house and caught him along with the weapon of offence. An FIR regarding this incident was lodged by Minuwara’s father Rajat Ali (informant) which was registered as Barpeta Police Station Case No. 3052/2014 under Section 302 of IPC and the Investigating Officer (IO for short) was entrusted with the investigation.

4. The IO went to the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of the witnesses and seized the weapon of offence and arrested the appellant. He made preparations for inquest and forwarded the body for autopsy and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge sheet under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant. At the commencement of trial, charges were framed under Section 302 of IPC; read over and explained to appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate its stance, prosecution adduced evidence of 9 (Nine) witnesses and the defence cross-examined the witnesses to refute the charges.

5. On the incriminating circumstances projected by the prosecution witnesses, several questions were asked to the appellant under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC for short). The plea of the appellant was of total denial. He did not tender any evidence in his defence.

Arguments for the Appellant :-

6. Learned counsel for the appellant laid stress in his argument that the informant is not an eye witness. It is not plausible that someone will attack a minor victim aged only 8 (Eight) years. No evidence of animosity between the appellant and any of the family members of the victim has surfaced, which may have prompted the appellant to act in such a manner. This case is fraught with discrepancies as the scribe who lodged the FIR was not made a witness. This is the reason why questions were asked by the Trial Court under Section 276(2) of CrPC when the evidence of the informant PW-1 was recorded.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the question Nos. 6 and 7 asked by the Court to the PW-1 and his response.

8. The question No. 6 and the answer is :-

“Question 6 : At the relevant time what was doing by your daughter in the court yard of accused?

Ans : At that time she was playing with the daughter of accused Sahnaj Begum.”

9. The question No. 7 and the answer is :-

“Question 7 : Whether at that time there was any quarrel between your daughter and the daughter of the accused?

Ans : Yes, while they were playing there was a quarrel between them regarding playing material and they pull and push each other and assaulted to each other.”

10. By highlighting the questions of the Court and the answers by PW-1, learned counsel for the appellant laid stress in his argument that PW-1 was half a kilometer away from the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that PW-2, Ambiya Begu