The court upheld murder convictions, emphasizing that minor witness discrepancies do not invalidate strong corroborating evidence; intent and premeditation were crucial in determining the charges.

Judgment :

Mitali Thakuria, J.

1.Heard Mr. N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent No.1 and Ms. P. B. Bordoloi, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the respondent No.2.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 19.11.2019, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, in Sessions Case No.138/2018, whereby the appellants were convicted (i) under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only along with default stipulation, (ii) under Section 324/34 IPC and sentenced 3 (three) years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only along with default stipulation and (iii) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years with fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only along with default stipulation under Section 325/34 IPC. All the sentences were to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant, Md. Akkash Ali (PW.2), who happens to be the uncle of the deceased, lodged an FIR before the In- charge of Singiri Police Out Post, alleging inter alia that on 19.09.2016, at around 12.30 p.m., the accused persons quarreled with the nephew of the informant, namely, Shah Ali and assaulted him by hand and lathi, as a result of which, Shah Ali died on the spot. Accordingly the In-charge of Singiri Police Out Post made a G.D. Entry being G.D. No.315 dated 20.09.2016 and forwarded the same to Dhekiajuli Police Station for registering the case and the same has been registered vide Dhekiajuli P.S. Case No. 660/2016, under sections 302/34 of the IPC.

4. Police accordingly investigated the case, recorded the statement of the witnesses and collected the medical report/post mortem report, etc. and after completion of investigation, the case was charge sheeted against 8 (eight) accused persons, under Sections 302/323/34 of the IPC.

5. After receipt of the charge sheet, the case was accordingly committed before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur and thereafter, it was again transferred to the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur, for trial. Initially the charge was framed against the accused persons under Section 302/34 of the IPC, but subsequently, the charge was altered and accordingly framed under Section 302/324/325/149 of the IPC.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined as many as twelve (12) Witnesses including the informant, the Investigating Officer and the Medical Officer. The accused persons took the plea of total denial and while recording their statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C and they declined to adduce evidence. The learned Trial Court after hearing the arguments, put forward by the learned counsels for both sides passed the impugned judgment and order. Out of the eight accused persons, the learned Trial Court acquitted five accused persons, namely, Sher Ali, Saidul Islam, Kuddus Ali, Msstt. Fatema Khatoon and Msstt. Majida Khatoon on the basis of benefit of doubt. However the present accused/appellants, namely, Abul Kalam, Araj Ali and Rustom Ali were convicted and sentenced, as stated earlier.

7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 19.11.2019, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, in Sessions Case No.138/2018, the present appeal has been preferred by the present three accused appellants.

8. Mr. N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no specific evidence as to who