The testimony of a police officer, even if acting as a sole or chance witness, is sufficient for conviction provided it is credible and trustworthy. Procedural lapses, such as failing to send a weapon for forensic analysis, do not automatically invalidate a conviction based on clear eyewitness evidence.

JUDGMENT :

M. Zothankhuma, J.

1. Heard Mr. H. R. A. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the appellant, assisted by Mr. I. U. Choudhury, learned counsel and Mr. U. Choudhury, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel and Addl. PP, Assam, assisted by Ms. R. Das, learned counsel.

2. This appeal has put to challenge the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC for having killed his wife, who had eloped. The appellant has been convicted by the impugned Judgment dated 01.08.2022 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Sessions Case No.168/2017 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

3. The appellant's counsel submits that the only eye witness to the crime in question is PW-5, who is an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police at Milan Nagar Outpost, Dibrugarh Police Station. He submits that though the alleged incident took place in a tea garden, where bonus was being paid to the workers and a nearby market had been set up in the area, the charge-sheet has not listed any private/independent person to be a prosecution witness. Instead PW-5, who is a policeman, has been made an eye witness to the crime. He submits that in the absence of any private/independent witness, the evidence of PW-5 cannot be the sole ground for convicting the appellant.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as the dao that has been seized by the police, which was the weapon used for the crime, had not been sent to the FSL for examination, the same was fatal to the prosecution case. He also submits that though PW-2 had stated that he had seen the appellant with a blood stained dao, which PW-2 had asked the appellant to drop, there was no proof that the said dao was the weapon used by the appellant to kill his wife.

5. The learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence of PW-2 shows that he did not give any prior statement to the police under section 161 Cr.PC and as such, the appellant was not given the chance to defend himself against the testimony of pw-2. He also submits that though the charge-sheet submitted in this case had listed 12 Prosecution Witnesses, who were to prove the case against the appellant, only 7 Prosecution Witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, thereby giving rise to an inference that the prosecution was hiding certain facts, which could have proved the innocence of the appellant. The appellant's counsel further submits that PW-5, who is a policeman, is a chance witness and the evidence of a chance witness cannot be relied upon without proper scrutiny. He accordingly submits that the prosecution not having been able to prove the guilt of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and as all the procedures required to be followed had not been followed, the impugned judgment should be set aside, as the same caused prejudice to the appellant.

6. On the other hand, the learned Addl. PP submits that there is no infirmity with the decision of the learned Trial Court, inasmuch as, there is no reason to doubt the evidence of PW-5, only because he is a policeman. In this regards, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Govindaraju @ Go