The conviction for murder upheld based on consistent eyewitness testimony, emphasizing the unreliability of the defense narrative regarding accidental death.

JUDGMENT :

Michael Zothankhuma, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, representing the State.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgement dated 01/08/2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar, in Sessions case No. 203/2023, by which, the appellant has been convicted under section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for 3 months.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that an FIR dated 18/07/2023 was submitted to the Officer-in-Charge of the Udarbond Police Station by the wife of the deceased, stating that when her husband was entering her home, the appellant, who is the brother of the deceased, called the deceased out to the courtyard, where upon, he kicked him in the scrotum due to which, the appellant fell to the ground. Thereafter, the appellant took a sharp dagger from his waist and was about to stab the deceased. However, the informant (PW-1) and her younger brother Zilon intervened. This led to the appellant pushing them to the ground. The deceased was then stabbed twice in his chest in front of the informant and Zilon by the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant fled away. When she took the deceased to the Udarbond Health Centre, Runu Begum, the sister of the deceased and the appellant hid the truth and lied to the Doctor that the injury on the deceased was due to an accident. The doctor then referred the deceased to the Silchar Medical College & Hospital (SMCH). The incident occurred around 8-30 p.m. and the informant stated that her husband died at the place of occurrence.

4. In pursuant to the FIR dated 18/07/2023, Udarbond PS case No. 133/2023 under sections 120(B)/302/201/34 IPC was registered. Runu Begum Laskar, the sister of the deceased was arrested on 18/07/2023. On the other hand, the appellant was arrested only on 19/07/2023.

5. In pursuance to the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer (IO) and after the body had been sent for post-mortem examination, the IO filed a charge sheet, as he found a prima facie case under sections 120(B)/302/201/34 IPC against the appellant Masuk Uddin Laskar and co-accused Runu Begum Laskar.

6. Charge was framed by the learned Trial Court against the appellant and Runu Begum under (i) section 120(B)/34 IPC; (ii) 302/34 IPC and (iii) 201/34 IPC. Thereafter, 7 (seven) prosecution witnesses were examined by the learned Trial Court. After examination of the appellant and Runu Begum Laskar was done under section 313 Cr.P.C, the learned trial Court came to a finding that the appellant was guilty of having committed the offence under section 302 IPC only. The appellant was acquitted of all the other charges leveled against him under section 120(B)/201 IPC. The co- accused Runu Begum Laskar was acquitted of all the charges by giving her the benefit of doubt.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgement should be set aside, in view of the fact that there are discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses. Secondly, no weapon was recovered from the appellant. He also submits that the death of the deceased had occurred due to the deceased having fallen on the iron rods which were protruding out of the cement pillars, which pierced his body, as the incident had occurred in a building under construction. He also submits that the FIR shows the GD entry number of the incident to have been recorded as “003”, while the actual GD entry number was “383”, as has been reflec