ATU MURA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal from jail puts to challenge the judgment and order dated 10. 03. 2003 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge-1, Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 92 (M)/2002, convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter for short referred to as the IPC) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life only.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. R. M. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused-appellant and Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam.

(3.) THE learned Amicus Curiae has emphatically argued that there is no eyewitness to the incident in the instant case and the purported extra judicial confession represented to have been made by the accused-appellant before some of the witnesses being wholly unreliable, his conviction is unsustainable in law. As the so called circumstantial evidence said to be implicating the accused-appellant does not unerringly point towards his guilt, the same is not cognizable in law, he urged. Mr. Choudhury contended that as the post mortem report does not disclose any incised wound on the dead body, the version to the contrary as contained in the FIR renders the prosecution case untrustworthy. Moreover, as the weapon of assault said to have been seized in course of the investigation had neither been forwarded for the forensic science examination nor produced in Court for identification, the prosecution, in all, had miserably failed to prove the charge against the accused-appellant and he is, thus, entitled to be acquitted.