Gauhati High Court
Sanjay Mura vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 20 August, 2025
Author: S.K. Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/21
GAHC010186352023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRL.A(J)/107/2023
SANJAY MURA
S/O-LT. SUNUBABU MURA, R/O-BARBHETA, P.S.-BOKAKHAT, DIST.-
GOLAGHAT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2:SRI NIPEN MURA
S/O-LT. RENGTU MURA
R/O-BARBHETA
P.S.-BOKAKHAT
DIST.-GOLAGHA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS B R A SULTANA,
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE
Advocate for the Appellant : Ms. BRA Sultana, Legal Aid Counsel
Advocate for the Respondents : Ms. A. Begum, APP, Assam
Page No.# 2/21
Date of Hearing : 23.07.2025
Date of Judgment : 20.08 .2025
Judgment & Order
(S.K. Medhi, J.)
The present appeal has been preferred from jail against the judgment
and order dated 16.06.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Golaghat, Assam in Sessions Case No. 68/2022 under Section 302 of the
IPC [corresponding to Section 103 BNS], thereby sentencing the appellant
to undergo RI for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) in
default, further imprisonment for 3 months.
2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on
11.07.2022 by one Nipen Mura who is the elder brother of the deceased
(PW2). It was stated in the Ejahar that the younger sister of the informant
was married to the appellant and they had led a conjugal life for a period of
about 8 years. He had learnt that two days ago, a quarrel had taken place
between them and the appellant had beat his younger sister as a result of
which she had taken shelter at the house of the informant. On the date of
lodging of the Ejahar at about 4 p.m. when the informant was not at home,
the appellant had come to his house and after hacking the neck of the
younger sister with a dao, he left for his home. When the informant came
home, he saw his sister bleeding and on enquiry came to know about the
incident. Subsequently, his younger sister was admitted in the Bokakhat
Civil Hospital by taking her in a 108 Ambulance but the Doctor had declared
her dead.
Page No.# 3/21
3. Based on the Ejahar, the formal FIR was registered under Section
302 Indian Penal Code leading to registration of Bokakhat Police Station
Case No. 86/2022. The investigation was accordingly initiated wherein the
Investigating Officer (IO) had visited the place of occurrence, recorded
statements of the relevant witnesses, prepared sketch maps, collected PM
Report and after completion of all the formalities had laid the Charge Sheet.
The charges were accordingly framed by the learned Court under Section
302 of the IPC and on its denial, the trial had begun in which the
prosecution had adduced evidence through 11 nos. of witnesses.
4. PW1 is the Doctor, who had conducted the Post Mortem on the body
of the deceased. He had made the following observations:
"In my opinion the cause of death of the deceased is due to
Syncope following shock and hemorrhage as a result of neck injury
sustained by the deceased."
The PM Report was proved as Exhibit P1.
5. PW2 is the informant, who is the elder brother of the deceased. He
had stated that at the time of the incident, he was not present in his home
and the deceased was with her son, aged about 6 years. When he was
proceeding to Namghar, he heard some hue and cry and returned to his
home and found the sister lying in the kitchen and his nephew - Nabajyoti
(PW4) had told him that the accused had cut the deceased. The PW2 had
deposed that he found the deceased in the kitchen with her neck slit. He
had also stated that three days prior to the incident, the appellant had
tortured the deceased because of suspicion and thereafter the deceased
Page No.# 4/21
had taken shelter with her younger son at his home. The FIR was proved
as Exhibit P2. The PW2 was subjected to cross-examination wherein he had
admitted of not witnessing the incident. He had however denied that no
statement was made by him to the IO that the son of the deceased had
told him that the accused came to his house and cut the deceased on her
neck with a pruning knife. It is also denied that he did not state before the
IO regarding the previous incident of three days prior when the appellant
had tortured his sister for which she had taken shelter at his place with her
younger son.
6. PW3 is a co-villager. He had stated that on the fateful day while he
was returning from the paddy field, he saw some villagers proceeding to
the house of the informant and heard that the appellant had cut his wife.
He had also stated that when he had reached the place of occurrence, the
police took the accused in their vehicle and the dead body of the deceased
was already sent to the Bokakhat Hospital. The police had also seized the
pruning knife and he was a seizure witness. The seizure list was proved as
Exhibit P3. PW3 was subjected to cross-examination.
7. PW4 is the son of the deceased as well as the appellant and at the
time of examination, he was aged about 6 years. It is seen that the learned
Trial Court had put a number of questions to assess the capacity of
understanding of the witness who was a tender child and on being
satisfied, the said PW3 was examined. The learned Trial Court had made
the following observations of recording his satisfaction:
"(1) Ques. : - What class do you read in?
Page No.# 5/21
Ans. : - I read in Class-I.
(2) Ques. : - What is the name of your school?
Ans. : - The name of our school is Borbheta L.P. School.
(3) Ques. : - What is the name of today ?
Ans. : - Today is Saturday.
(4) Ques. : - How many brother do you have?
Ans. : - I have two brothers.
(5) Ques. : - What is the name of elder brother?
Ans. : - The name of my elder brother is Upen."
8. PW4 had clearly stated that at the time of the incident, he was with
his mother who was warming her body near the fire and at that time, the
appellant came and caught hold of his mother from the backside and cut
her with a knife in front of her neck and he had seen the incident.
Thereafter his mother fell down and was writhing and his father went away
to his own house. He had called his maternal aunt Rumi who also came
there along with many other people. He had also stated that he had made
a statement before the learned Bokakhat Court and that the facts were also
stated before the police. The PW4 was subjected to cross-examination
wherein his chief examination was not able to be shaken.
9. PW5 is the Munsiff-cum-JMFC, who had recorded the statement of
PW4 under Section 164 of the CrPC [corresponding to Section 183 of
BNSS]. He had stated that the witness was interacted and after being
reasonably satisfied, his statement was recorded. The said statement was
Page No.# 6/21
proved as Exhibit P4. In the cross-examination he had stated that the
witness was accompanied by the paternal uncle and escorted by one Home
Guard.
10. PW6 is a co-villager and he had stated that on the fateful day when
he was ready to go to the market he heard hue and cry from the house of
the informant and proceeded to that place. The wife of the informant had
told him that the appellant had cut his wife. An ambulance had come
thereafter she was taken to the hospital and he saw the deceased bleeding
through cut injury on the neck. PW6 is also a seizure witness so far as the
knife is concerned and the same was proved as Exhibit P3. In the cross-
examination he had however stated that he did not know the contents of
the seizure list and did not see the pruning knife at the time of putting the
signature on the seizure list.
11. PW7 is also a co-villager and he has stated that on the fateful day
while he was taking his cows, he heard some hue and cry from the wife of
the informant. When he had entered the house, he had found the deceased
was lying with bleeding injury in their kitchen. He saw the bleeding injury
on her neck and Sumitra told him that accused had cut Suman. The son of
the accused had also told him he was present and he saw the incident. He
had immediately informed the matter to the VDP Persons and 108
Ambulance. She was accordingly taken to the hospital where she died. He
had reiterated that the son of the accused had witnessed the entire
incident. In the cross-examination, he had stated that when he had
reached the spot the son of the deceased did not say anything. He had also
admitted of not stating before the I.O. that Sumitra had told him that the
Page No.# 7/21
accused had cut his wife. He had also clarified that at the time of the
incident Sumitra was outside the house. He had also admitted of not stating
before the IO that police had not recovered pruning knife from the house of
the accused.
12. PW8 is also a co-villager and he had stated that on returning from
the market on the fateful day while he saw gathering at the house of the
accused and saw the deceased was lying in the kitchen with bleeding
injures on her neck. He heard from Nigen that the accused had cut his wife
with a pruning knife and he kept the pruning knife below the mattress. The
deceased was immediately taken to the hospital where she died. In the
cross-examination, he had however denied of not stating the relevant
materials to the I.O. of hearing from the Nigen that the accused had cut his
wife with a pruning knife.
13. PW9 is the sister-in-law of the deceased Sumitra Mura. She had
stated that at the relevant time she was at her house along with deceased
and her son Nabajyoti Mura and accused was the husband of the deceased.
At that time, she was pulling water from tube well and the deceased was in
the kitchen and Nabajoyti was present in the middle room of the house.
She had seen the appellant entering the house and after that he came out
to the backyard and Nabajyoti called her to the house and stated that his
father had cut his mother. Then she rushed to the room and saw the
deceased was lying in the pool of blood and she saw cut injury on her neck
and made a hue and cry whereafter neighbours had come. Accordingly, a
108 Ambulance was called and the injured was taken to the hospital and
later she came to know that she had died. She saw the pruning knife in the
Page No.# 8/21
hands of the accused. She had further stated that two days prior to the
incident, quarrel had taken place between the accused and the wife and he
had beaten her severely. Thereafter, she had called the deceased to their
house and since then she was residing with them. The appellant was in his
house on the date of the incident and he came to their house and
committed the offence. In the cross-examination, PW9 had stated that she
did not know the reason of the quarrel between the accused and the
deceased. Though the matter was sought to be compromised, the
deceased did not want to go back for which the appellant had become
angry. She had stated that prior to the incident, the parties were living
happily and there were two children aged about 8 years and 6 years. She
had clarified that the incident took place at about 5 PM and there was
darkness. She had however denied that she did not state before the police
of seeing the pruning knife in the hands of the appellant. The rest of the
suggestions were denied by the PW9.
14. PW10 is the IO who had investigated the case. He had stated that
the information was received on 11.07.2022 which was entered into by the
Officer-in-Charge as GD Entry No. 220 and he was entrusted with the
investigation. The GD Entry was proved as Exhibit P5. After such entry, he
had proceeded to the place of occurrence along with other staff and in the
meantime, the injured was taken to the Bokakhat Civil Hospital. He saw
blood stain on the ground of the kitchen and interrogated the witnesses.
Thereafter, he had proceeded to the house of the appellant and found and
apprehended him. He had also stated that as per the direction of the
appellant, he had recovered the pruning knife used in the incident which
Page No.# 9/21
was seized and proved as Material Exhibit 1 and the seizure list was proved
as Exhibit P3. He had stated that at the Police Station he came to know
that the deceased had died in the hospital and thereafter proceeded to the
Bokakhat Civil Hospital and saw the dead body with her neck slit and found
blood stain there. Thereafter, the body was brought to the Police Station
and in the meantime, the FIR was lodged and the statement of the
informant was recorded. The appellant was arrested. On the next date, the
Executive Magistrate performed the inquest over the dead body which was
sent to the Civil Hospital for Post Mortem. He had collected the Post
Mortem Report and also sent the son of the deceased for statement to be
recorded under Section 164 CrPC. He had also prepared a sketch map
which was proved as Exhibit P6 and after completion of the investigation,
had submitted the Charge Sheet which was proved as Exhibit 7. He had
categorically submitted that he found two eye witnesses namely, Sumitra
Mura (PW9) and Nabajyoti Mura (PW4). In the cross examination, he had
stated that the distance between the place of occurrence and the house of
the accused was about 100 meters. He had also stated that PW2 the
informant did not state before him that Nabajyoti had told him that the
accused came to their house and cut his sister on the neck with the pruning
knife. He had also stated that the PW8 did not state before him that he
came to know from Nigen (PW2) that the accused had cut his wife with a
pruning knife. He had also admitted that PW9 did not state before him that
he saw the pruning knife in the hands of the appellant.
15. PW11 is the Asst. Commissioner of the Bokakhat Sub-Division and
had done the inquest on the dead body of the deceased. He had stated
Page No.# 10/21
that body was lying on the stretcher of Swargarath van in Bokakhat PS. The
Inquest Report was proved as Exhibit P8. In the cross examination he had
stated that he had personally seen all the injuries and it is not the fact that
no bleeding injury was seen on genital part of the dead body.
16. Based on the aforesaid deposition and the materials, the appellant
was examined under Section 313 of the CrPC [corresponding to Section 351
of BNSS]. It is however pertinent to know that the appellant had admitted
of committing the offence which however was said to be a mistake. The
admission was clearly done in reply to the Q. Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 15, 16,
20, 21, 23, 24 and 25. He had however stated that PW4 and PW9 did not
witness the incident.
17. Based on the aforesaid materials including the depositions and the
response of the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC
[corresponding to section 351 of BNSS], the impugned judgment dated
16.06.2023 has been passed which is the subject matter of challenge in the
present appeal.
18. We have heard Ms. BRA Sultana, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the
appellant. We have also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State of Assam.
19. Ms. Sultana, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant has
submitted that though as per the prosecution, there are two eyewitnesses,
so far as PW4 - son is concerned, he is a child witness and therefore,
cannot be relied upon wholly. As regards the second eye witness, namely,
Sumitra Mura, PW9, it is submitted that she is not an eye witness and only
Page No.# 11/21
a hearsay witness whose testimony would not have any evidentiary value.
It is submitted that if the aforesaid two witnesses are excluded, there
would be no other materials to implicate the appellant.
20. The learned Legal Aid Counsel has submitted that there was no
forensic examination done on the weapon seized namely, the pruning knife
so as to connect the same with the appellant. Further, no serological test
was conducted or even blood stains collected either from the place of
occurrence or from the wearing apparels of the deceased and the
appellant. She submits that in absence of the same, the conviction and
sentence would not be sustainable.
21. Per contra, Ms. Begum, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
Assam has supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that the
conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge is based on all the
relevant materials. She submits that there were two eye witnesses whose
testimony had not been impeached. She has submitted that even the
motive is apparent as it is on record that there was a quarrel two days
before the incident and the offence has been committed with a pre-plan.
She also submits that there was no grave and sudden provocation which
may require to explore whether the offence may be culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.
22. As regards PW4, who is a child witness, the learned APP has
submitted that all the precautions were taken to assess the understanding
of the child witness and a satisfaction was recorded. Further, it is submitted
that the child will not make false allegations against his father. The
statement of the PW4 is also consistent with his statement made under
Page No.# 12/21
Section 164 of the CrPC.
23. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials,
including the TCRs placed before this Court have been carefully examined.
24. The prosecution has claimed that there are two eye witnesses in the
present case, namely, PW4 - the son of the deceased and PW9 - the wife
of the informant. It however appears that PW9 did not claim to have seen
the incident of the appellant slitting the neck of the deceased and was only
informed by PW4. The testimony of the PW4 is however very clear wherein
he had categorically deposed that his father had come and cut hold of his
mother (deceased) and cut her with a katari (knife) and he had seen the
incident. He has further narrated that his mother fell down after the cut and
was writhing and his father went away to his own house. We have noticed
that the learned Sessions Judge had put all the relevant questions to PW4,
who is a child witness to come to a satisfaction of his understanding and
only thereafter, had gone ahead with his examination.
25. At this stage, it may be noted that PW4 had also made a statement
under Section 164 of the CrPC. The said examination was done on
14.07.2022 i.e. 3 days after the incident when the memory was fresh. The
said statement which has been proved as Exhibit P4 has been perused and
we have found that even the learned Magistrate had taken the precaution
to assess the understanding of the child witness by putting certain
questions and recording the satisfaction in the following manner:
"After interacting with the victim, I was reasonably satisfied that he
possessed the requisite rationality to depose and subsequently, I
Page No.# 13/21
proceeded to record his statement."
26. It is seen that the statement of PW4 made under Section 164 of the
CrPC is consistent with the deposition made by him in the trial. At this
stage, we may also refer to the views expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Kanwar Pal Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in
AIR 1994 SC 1045 wherein it has been laid down that statement under
Section 164 CrPC should not be viewed with initial distrust.
27. As regards the law concerning a child witness, the same has been
settled in a catena of decisions that such a witness would be a competent
one and the only requirement is to make a preliminary assessment on the
understanding of the child. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision
reported in 2025 INSC 261 [State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Balveer
Singh], after discussing the various propositions on the subject, has laid
down as follows:
"58. We summarize our conclusion as under: -
(I) The Evidence Act does not prescribe any minimum age for
a witness, and as such a child witness is a competent witness
and his or her evidence and cannot be rejected outrightly.
(II) As per Section 118 of the Evidence Act, before the
evidence of the child witness is recorded, a preliminary
examination must be conducted by the Trial Court to ascertain
if the child-witness is capable of understanding sanctity of
giving evidence and the import of the questions that are being
put to him.
Page No.# 14/21
(III) Before the evidence of the child witness is recorded, the
Trial Court must record its opinion and satisfaction that the
child witness understands the duty of speaking the truth and
must clearly state why he is of such opinion.
(IV) The questions put to the child in the course of the
preliminary examination and the demeanour of the child and
their ability to respond to questions coherently and rationally
must be recorded by the Trial Court. The correctness of the
opinion formed by the Trial Court as to why it is satisfied that
the child witness was capable of giving evidence may be gone
into by the appellate court by either scrutinizing the
preliminary examination conducted by the Trial Court, or from
the testimony of the child witness or the demeanour of the
child during the deposition and cross-examination as recorded
by the Trial Court.
(V) The testimony of a child witness who is found to be
competent to depose i.e., capable of understanding the
questions put to it and able to give coherent and rational
answers would be admissible in evidence.
(VI) The Trial Court must also record the demeanour of the
child witness during the course of its deposition and cross-
examination and whether the evidence of such child witness is
his voluntary expression and not borne out of the influence of
others.
Page No.# 15/21
(VII) There is no requirement or condition that the evidence of
a child witness must be corroborated before it can be
considered. A child witness who exhibits the demeanour of
any other competent witness and whose evidence inspires
confidence can be relied upon without any need for
corroboration and can form the sole basis for conviction. If the
evidence of the child explains the relevant events of the crime
without improvements or embellishments, the same does not
require any corroboration whatsoever.
(VIII) Corroboration of the evidence of the child witness may
be insisted upon by the courts as measure of caution and
prudence where the evidence of the child is found to be either
tutored or riddled with material discrepancies or
contradictions. There is no hard and fast rule when such
corroboration would be desirous or required, and would
depend upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of each
case.
(IX) Child witness are considered as dangerous witnesses as
they are pliable and liable to be influenced easily, shaped and
moulded and as such the courts must rule out the possibility
of tutoring. If the courts after a careful scrutiny, find that there
is neither any tutoring nor any attempt to use the child
witness for ulterior purposes by the prosecution, then the
courts must rely on the confidence-inspiring testimony of such
a witness in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Page No.# 16/21
In the absence of any allegations by the accused in this
regard, an inference as to whether the child has been tutored
or not, can be drawn from the contents of his deposition.
(X) The evidence of a child witness is considered tutored if
their testimony is shaped or influenced at the instance of
someone else or is otherwise fabricated. Where there has
been any tutoring of a witness, the same may possibly
produce two broad effects in their testimony; (i) improvisation
or (ii) fabrication.
(i) Improvisation in testimony whereby facts have been
altered or new details are added inconsistent with the
version of events not previously stated must be
eradicated by first confronting the witness with that part
of its previous statement that omits or contradicts the
improvisation by bringing it to its notice and giving the
witness an opportunity to either admit or deny the
omission or contradiction. If such omission or
contradiction is admitted there is no further need to
prove the contradiction. If the witness denies the
omission or contradiction the same has to be proved in
the deposition of the investigating officer by proving that
part of police statement of the witness in question. Only
thereafter, may the improvisation be discarded from
evidence or such omission or contradiction be relied
upon as evidence in terms of Section 11 of Evidence Act.
Page No.# 17/21
(ii) Whereas the evidence of a child witness which is
alleged to be doctored or tutored in toto, then such
evidence may be discarded as unreliable only if the
presence of the following two factors have to be
established being as under: -
▪ Opportunity of Tutoring of the child witness in question
whereby certain foundational facts suggesting
or demonstrating the probability that a part of the
testimony of the witness might have been tutored have
to be established.
This may be done either by showing that there was a
delay in recording the statement of such witness or that
the presence of such witness was doubtful, or by
imputing any motive on the part of such witness to
depose falsely, or the susceptibility of such witness in
falling prey to tutoring. However, a mere bald assertion
that there is a possibility of the witness in question being
tutored is not sufficient.
▪ Reasonable likelihood of tutoring wherein the
foundational facts suggesting a possibility of tutoring as
established have to be further proven or cogently
substantiated. This may be done by leading evidence to
prove a strong and palpable motive to depose falsely, or
Page No.# 18/21
by establishing that the delay in recording the statement
is not only unexplained but indicative and suggestive of
some unfair practice or by proving that the witness fell
prey to tutoring and was influenced by someone else
either by cross-examining such witness at length that
leads to either material discrepancies or contradictions,
or exposes a doubtful demeanour of such witness rife
with sterile repetition and confidence lacking testimony,
or through such degree of incompatibility of the version
of the witness with the other material on record and
attending circumstances that negates their presence as
unnatural.
(XI) Merely because a child witness is found to be repeating
certain parts of what somebody asked her to say is no reason
to discard her testimony as tutored, if it is found that what is
in substance being deposed by the child witness is something
that he or she had actually witnessed. A child witness who has
withstood his or her cross-examination at length and able to
describe the scenario implicating the accused in detail as the
author of crime, then minor discrepancies or parts of coached
deposition that have crept in will not by itself affect the
credibility of such child witness.
(XII) Part of the statement of a child witness, even if tutored,
can be relied upon, if the tutored part can be separated from
Page No.# 19/21
the untutored part, in case such remaining untutored or
untainted part inspires confidence.
The untutored part of the evidence of the child witness
can be believed and taken into consideration or the
purpose of corroboration as in the case of a hostile
witness."
28. There is another aspect of this matter which is of relevance, namely,
the response of the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of the
CrPC. It has already been recorded above that the appellant has admitted
in clear terms regarding his complicity. Though the statements made under
Section 313 of the CrPC by an accused are not evidence as those are not
recorded on oath, the same can be taken for corroboration of the other
testimonies on record. In this connection, it would be relevant to refer to
the case of Paul vs. State of Kerala reported in (2020) 3 SCC 115
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court made the following observations
follows:
"20. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that a statement
made by the accused under Section 313 CrPC even if it contains
inculpatory admissions cannot be ignored and the court may where
there is evidence available proceed to enter a verdict of guilt. ..."
29. In a recent judgment in the case of Premchand Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in (2023) 5 SCC 522, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has, amongst others, made the following observations:
Page No.# 20/21
"g. statements of the accused in course of examination under
section 313, since not on oath, do not constitute evidence
under section 3 of the Evidence Act, yet, the answers given
are relevant for finding the truth and examining the veracity of
the prosecution case;
h. statement(s) of the accused cannot be dissected to rely on
the inculpatory part and ignore the exculpatory part and
has/have to be read in the whole, inter alia, to test the
authenticity of the exculpatory nature of admission."
30. Though an issue would arise regarding non-conducting of forensic or
serological examination, we are of the view that such omission would not
be fatal in all prosecution cases. As mentioned above, apart from the eye
witness in the form of PW4, there are other evidence including the
response of the appellant under Section 313 of the CrPC.
31. There is also the aspect of motive, which in a case availability of eye
witness may not be a sine qua non. Nonetheless, it is on record that the
deceased had refused to return to the matrimonial home after she had
come to the informant (her brother) house two days before. In this
connection, one may refer to the case of Surinder Singh Vs. The Union
Territory of Chandigarh reported in (2021) 14 SCALE 223 in which the
following observations were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
"24. We are thus of the considered opinion that whilst motive is
infallibly a crucial factor, and is a substantial aid for evincing the
commission of an offence but the absence thereof is, however, not
Page No.# 21/21
such a quintessential component which can be construed as fatal to
the case of the prosecution, especially when all other factors point
towards the guilt of the accused and testaments of eyewitnesses to
the occurrence of a malfeasance are on record."
32. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the discussions
made, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order dated
16.06.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat, Assam in
Sessions Case No. 68/2022 under Section 302 of the IPC [corresponding to
Section 103 BNS] do not warrant any interference.
33. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
34. Let the TCRs be sent back.
35. We record our valuable appreciation for the assistance rendered by
Ms. BRA Sultana, the learned Legal Aid Counsel and she shall be entitled to
the prescribed fee.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
