A single credible eyewitness testimony can suffice for conviction in a murder case, even with minor inconsistencies, as corroborated by medical evidence.

Judgment :

(S.K. Medhi, J.)

The instant appeal has been preferred from jail against the judgment dated 20.12.2021 and order dated 21.12.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Baksa, Mushalpur in Sessions Case No. 54/2021, sentencing the appellant to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for life and fine of Rs.1000/- in default of which RI of 2 months. The same involves the killing of the father of the informant by the appellant.

2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar by PW 3 alleging, inter alia, that on 04.03.2021 at about 5:30 p.m. when his father Jogen Boro (deceased) was sleeping inside the house, the appellant had trespassed into the house and had assaulted his father by repeatedly beating him on the left side of his head by a ‘bhuluka bah’ (a kind of bamboo) and when the informant had reached his home at about 6:00 p.m., he had seen his father lying dead on the bed and accordingly had informed the villagers. Though the Ejahar does not bear a date, the registration of the same in the format would show that the information was received at 11:00 p.m. on 04.03.2021 and the occurrence has been stated to be at 5:30 p.m. of 04.03.2021.

3. Based on the aforesaid Ejahar, the formal FIR was registered and investigation was done in which the statements of the relevant witnesses were recorded, the accused/appellant was arrested, Sketch Map of the place of occurrence was prepared, body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem and seizures were made. After completion of all the formalities, the charge-sheet was laid. Based on the same, two charges were framed against the appellant and on denial of the same, the trial had begun in which the prosecution had adduced evidence through 6 nos. of prosecution witnesses.

4. PW 1 is the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem over the body of the deceased. He had deposed that on 05.03.2021, he had conducted the aforesaid post mortem in which injuries were found on the head and face of the deceased which appeared to have been caused by a blunt weapon. For ready reference the injuries found are extracted herein below:

“Wounds: A lacerated injury over upper lip size 3cm x 1.5 cm x 1 c.m

2. lacerated injury over forehead towards left size 10 cm x 4 cm x to the deep into bone.

3. lacerated injury size: 10cm x 5c.m x to the deep into left eye.

4. left eye in complexity damage. No active bleeding from wound is noticed.Wound-margins are irregular. Only tissue bridges are seen some places.”

5. PW 2 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased, who is also the younger sister of the appellant. She had deposed that on the date of the incident, her father- in-law was sleeping inside the house when the appellant had come and entered the house and had assaulted her father-in-law with a bamboo stick, which she had witnessed and thereupon she had raised an alarm. The villagers had accordingly come to the place of occurrence and apprehended the appellant and he was handed over to the police. She had deposed that her father-in-law had sustained injuries on his head and face and had died immediately. In the cross- examination, she had clarified that the appellant is her own elder brother who used to scold her father-in-law harshly and had assa