(1.) The instant criminal appeal from Jail under Sec. 383, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["the CrPC' or 'the Code', for short] is directed against a Judgment and Order dtd. 12/6/2017 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj at Karimganj ["the trial court', for short] in Sessions Case no. 46/2016 [The State of Assam vs. Sri Abdul Sukkur]. By the Judgment and Order dtd. 12/6/2017, the accused-appellant has been convicted under Sec. 302, Indian Penal Code [IPC] and he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for another period of 2 [two] months.
(2.) We have heard Mr. L. Devi, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused-appellant and Ms. S.H. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent State of Assam.
(3.) Ms. Devi, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused-appellant has submitted that out of the 7 [seven] nos. of prosecution witnesses, only one witness, that is, P.W.2 appeared to be present at the place of occurrence in and around the time when the incident had happened. P.W.2 and two other prosecution witnesses, that is, P.W.3 and P.W.5 were declared hostile by the prosecution. Though the prosecution side had cross-examined the three of them, that is, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5, but none of them were confronted with their previous statements so as to prove any contradiction with their testimonies adduced before the court vis-"-vis their previous statements. The learned Amicus Curiae has contended that though the incident had occurred inside the house of the accused-appellant and the deceased but they were not alone as there were other inmates in the house at the relevant time. None of the prosecution witnesses had attributed the act of assault to the accused-appellant and as such, the learned trial court had erred to reach a finding that the prosecution had brought the charge for the offence of murder beyond all reasonable doubts.