The presence of eyewitness testimony and corroborating medical evidence can uphold a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC despite challenges regarding procedural discrepancies.

Judgment :

Michael Zothankhuma, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel and Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, representing the State and Ms. K. Phukan, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent no. 2.

2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgement dated 10/02/2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu, in Sessions case No. 63/2019, by which the appellant has been convicted under section 302 IPC for killing his wife in front of his daughter. The appellant was thereafter sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, is that PW-1 submitted an FIR dated 17/07/2019 to the Officer-in-Charge, Dillai Police Station, stating that his daughter got married with the appellant (son-in-law) in the year 2011 and they had 3 (three) children. While they were living a happy and peaceful family life, a quarrel took place between his son-in-law and daughter around 4-30 a.m. on 17/07/2019, due to which the appellant hit the head of his daughter (deceased) with two pieces of wood, as a result of which his daughter died. Pursuant to the FIR, Dillai PS case No. 25/2019 under section 302 IPC was registered. After investigation had been completed, the Investigating Officer (IO) (PW-8) submitted a charge sheet, having found a prima facie case under section 302 against the appellant. The Trial Court thereafter examined 8 (eight) prosecution witnesses and after examining the appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C., the learned Trial Court held that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the guilt of the appellant in killing his wife. The appellant was thereafter convicted and sentenced under section 302 .

4. Aggrieved with the impugned judgement, the present appeal has been filed.

5. The learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submits that there is a delay in filing the FIR, inasmuch as, while the incident took place around 4 a.m. on17/07/2019, the FIR had been filed 12 hours later. He also submits that while GD Entry No. 323 had been given in respect of the FIR submitted by the PW-1, the seizure memo, inquest report, were in relation to another GD Entry No. 332 dated17/07/2019. As such, the discrepancy in the GD Entry Number did not prove that the Inquest Report, Post Mortem Examination and Seizure report had all been done in connection with the present case. He also submits that the evidence of PW-5, the Doctor, is to the effect that there was only one injury found on the head of the deceased, which goes to show that only one blow had been given to the head of the deceased. This was not in consonance with the evidence of the daughter of the deceased (PW-2), who had stated that she saw her father assaulting her mother with a wooden log many times.

6. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that as the incident had been seen by the daughter of the appellant and the deceased, and as the Medical Report shows that only one injury was inflicted on the deceased, the conviction may be altered from section 302 IPC to section 304 Part- I or II .

7. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned APP, on the other hand, submits that when there is an eye witness to the crime, which in this case is PW-2 (daughter), there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned judgement. She also submits that there is nothing in the evidence to show that the Exceptions to section 300 IPC are attracted, for which there can be an alteration of charge framed against the appellant.

8. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

9. The evidence of the father of t