The absence of motive does not impair reliable eyewitness testimony; direct evidence is sufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

W.DIENGDOH, J.

1. This is a case where two persons, a mother and her son-in-law were said to have been murdered by the appellant herein on 14.05.1992 at the house of the deceased at Khliehrangnah Lum Muchai in the West Jaintia Hills District of the State. The names of the deceased are Lur @ Lo Rabon (D1) and his mother-in-law, Lakma @ Kma Sungoh (D2).

2. From the records what could be gathered is that though there was no initial FIR lodge, however, apparently, the police were informed of such incident, when on 15.05.1992 one Wanbeit Shullet, the local Member of the District Council (MDC) came along with the appellant to the police station at Jowai, whereby the said Mr. Shullet informed the police that the appellant had committed a double murder. The said information was noted in the G.D. (General Dairy) Entry vide Jowai P.S. G.D. Entry No. 500 dated 15.05.1992. The appellant was placed under custody immediately.

3. It is also noticed from the records that on forwarding of the said GDE No. 500 dated 15.05.1992 on 20.05.1992, the Officer Incharge, Jowai Police station was requested to convert the same as the FIR on the ground that the relatives of the deceased persons declined to file a formal complaint. Accordingly, the same being treated as an FIR, it was registered as Jowai P.S. Case No. 69 of 1992 u/s 302 IPC and investigation was launched. The Investigating Officer, on completion of investigation submitted Chargesheet No. 100 of 1994 dated 29.07.1994 with the opinion that a prima facie case is found well established against the accused/appellant herein and he was sent to face trial before the competent court of jurisdiction.

4. The case was taken up for trial by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jowai, West Jaintia Hills, however vide order dated 12.07.2005 it was transferred to the Court of the Judge, Fast Track Court, Jowai for disposal. Yet again, at the evidence stage of the case, it was transferred to the Sessions Court, Jowai for final disposal which was done so. The same being re-registered as Sessions Case No. 89 of 2015.

5. The prosecution examined 6(six) witnesses in total and exhibited 5(five) documents in all. After all the witnesses have been examined, the accused/appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. where his response to the questions put by the Court was noted down. After such statement was completed, on being asked, the accused/appellant declined to examine any witnesses from his side.

6. The learned Trial Court then heard the arguments of the learned counsels for the respective parties and on consideration of such argument, appreciation of evidence on record and while applying the law as is deemed proper, has, vide judgment dated 05.11.2021, held the accused/appellant guilty of the offence of murder and hence punishable under section 302 Cr.P.C.

7. Again, upon hearing the parties on the quantum of sentence, the learned Trial Court has vide order of sentence dated 08.11.2021 sentenced the accused/appellant to undergo a sentence of life imprisonment with fine of ₹ 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) only.

8. On being so convicted, the appellant has preferred this instant appeal being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 15.11.2021 and sentence dated 08.11.2021.

9. It may be mentioned that in course of these proceedings before this Court, the learned Sr. counsel for the appellant, Mr. S.P. Mahanta has raised the issue of mental disability as far as the appellant/accused is concerned which, according to him would have a bearing in the manner the trial has proceeded under such circumstances and if proved, would vitiate the entire trial and the subsequent order of conviction.

10. This Court has allowed the parties to be heard on this preliminary issue and has also caused related medical examination and report to be filed thereto. In brief, the medical report would say that the accused/ appellant has Mild Intellectual Disability. It is however not certain as to wheth