The testimony of an injured eyewitness holds high evidentiary value, and a conviction may be based on such sole testimony if found credible; minor discrepancies in medical or ocular evidence, which do not strike at the root of the prosecution's case, do not warrant setting aside a conviction.

Judgment :

S.K. Medhi , J.

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 03.05.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai in Sessions Case No. 30(DM)/2015 convicting the accused Sonabasi Biswas and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for one year under Section 302 of the IPC.

2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 21.03.2010 by one Muchiram Biswas (PW1) alleging inter alia that on the said day at about 9 PM, the accused persons including the appellant had trespassed into the house of his son, Sibashi Biswas and injured him severely by stabbing with dagger and also killed his daughter-in-law, Bisaka Biswas by dealing blows with dagger. It was also stated that there was dispute regarding landed property. Based on the said Ejahar, police case being MLD PS Case No. 264/2010 was registered under Sections 147/448/326/302 of the IPC and investigation was accordingly made. After completion of the investigation, the police had laid the chargesheet and accordingly charges were framed. As the charges were denied, the trial had begun, in which the prosecution had adduced evidence through 10 nos. of prosecution witnesses.

3. PW1 is the informant who had deposed regarding the incident and his lodging of the Ejahar, which was proved as Exhibit 1. He had deposed of witnessing five persons running away from the place of occurrence. In the cross examination, however, he had admitted that there was no electricity connection to the house of the deceased.

4. PW2 is one Prabhat Sarkar, who was the scribe of the Ejahar and is a neighbour. He had, however, admitted that he had heard about the incident and further that the deceased Bisaka was his cousin.

5. PW3 is the Doctor,who had conducted the postmortem upon the deceased. He had deposed that 5nos. of injuries were detected, which were caused by sharp pointed weapons. In the cross examination, he had deposed that it appears that the deceased had taken food 4 - 5 hours before her death. The postmortem was proved as Exhibit 3 and the opinion reads as follows:

“Death is due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of injury sustained as described above. All the injuries are ante-mortem and caused by sharp pointed object and homicidal in nature. Time since of death is approximately 12 hours to 24 hours. All injuries are fatal.”

6. PW4 - Jyotish Mandal is the brother of the deceased, who stays in the same village at a distance of 1KM. He had deposed that Sibashi, the husband of the deceased who was also injured had told him about the attackers. PW4 was, however, was confronted with his statement made under Section 161 CrPC regarding such disclosure by Sibashi.

7. PW5 is Sibashi Biswas, who is the husband of the deceased and was also attacked and injured. In his deposition, he had clearly stated that he knew all the accused persons out of which 3 were his own brothers. He had stated that on the fateful day at about 9 PM,when they had heard a sound outside their house, his wife had come out, followed by him. At that time,the accused persons, including the appellant, had attacked his wife with daggers in her neck, stomach, face and thereafter also attacked him with daggers on his forehead, chest, stomach and hand. He had made specific allegations against each