JUDGMENT A. Potsangbam, J. 1. The appeal, against the impugned judgment dated 6.9.2007, is preferred from jail by the sole appellant who was found guilty and convicted of the offence under Section 302, IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, Assam, in Sessions Case No. 140/2005 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000 only, in default thereof, imprisonment for another 15 days. 2. We have heard Ms. R.D. Mazumdar, learned amicus curiae, appearing for the accused appellant and Mr. D. Das, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 19.8.2005 at about 9:30 a.m., the appellant inflicted cut injury, with the help of a sharp dao, on the neck of the deceased Puspa Konwar who was the husband of the appellant and thereafter, he was hit on the head with an iron hammer and as a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries. From the place of occurrence, i.e., Sessa Tinali, under Barbaruah PS, the injured Puspa Konwar was taken to Barbaruah Police Station by one Shri Kamal Bora and another Shri Baba Ganju @ Gogoi, in a jeep, and informed the O.C. of Barbaruah Police Station, Dibrugarh, that the deceased was injured by his wife, the accused appellant Smt. Usha Konwar. Thereafter, as directed by the O.C., the deceased was taken to Assam Medical College where he succumbed to his injury. One Shri Keshab Konwar, the nephew of the deceased, lodged a written Ejahar on 19.8.2005 to the O.C. of the Barbaruah Police Station who, on receipt of the Ejahar, made a GD entry No. 539 dated 19.8.2005, and thereafter, Barbaruah P.S. Case No. 76/2001 was registered under Section 302, IPC. Police investigated the case, inquest was held, post mortem was performed, the weapons of offence namely, one pruning dao and one iron hammer were seized and evidence of witnesses were recorded. 4. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet before the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh and the offence under Section 302, IPC, being exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case, i.e., GR Case No. 1391/2005 was committed by the learned Magistrate to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, who framed the charge under Section 302, IPC. On pleading not guilty to the charge, the accused appellant was directed to he tried on the aforesaid charge. On pleading not guilty to the charge, the accused appellant was directed to he tried on the aforesaid charge. At the end of the trial, after scrutiny of the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, came to the conclusion that the accused appellant was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and sentenced her to life imprisonment with line. 5. The court will now examine the evidence on record and the reasoning adopted by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, to find out whether the conviction and sentence imposed by and in the impugned Judgment dated 6.9.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 140/2005, can be sustained or not. 6. The prosecution had examined altogether 13 PWs including the Investigating Officer and the Medical Officer. No defence witness was produced by the accused appellant and the plea taken by the appellant in her examination under Section 313, Cr.PC was that of total denial to the charge. In the examination under Section 313, Cr.PC, the accused appellant denied of any knowledge about the seizure of the pruning knife and iron hammer as she remained unconscious, at the relevant point of time. 7. Admittedly, the appellant is the wife of the deceased. PW Nos. 1 and 11 are the nephews of the deceased. PW Nos. 3 and 5 are the daughters of the deceased and also of the appellant. PW No. 6 is the aunt of the deceased and PW No. 9 is a close relative. 8. The case of the prosecution rests solely on the evidence of PW No. 6, who is the aunt (paternal) of the deceased. Other PWs barring the I.O., had not deposed anything in their evidence which could implicate the appellant with the incident. It is in the evidence of PW No. 6 that on hearing a hue and cry at the house of the deceased, she came from the field where she was transplanting paddy seedlings and found the deceased lying injured in his house but the deceased was unable to speak. She also stated that the villagers took Puspa Konwar to hospital in injured state. Further, the witness stated that Usha Konwar (appellant), when asked, confessed that she had injured the deceased by cutting him with a Dao. She also stated that the villagers took Puspa Konwar to hospital in injured state. Further, the witness stated that Usha Konwar (appellant), when asked, confessed that she had injured the deceased by cutting him with a Dao. In the cross-examination, this witness admitted that there were already about 100/120 persons at the place of occurrence when she reached there. Therefore, it is natural that if at all the alleged confession was made by the appellant, the same could not have been made without the knowledge and hearing of the other persons already gathered at the residence of the deceased. Of course, the alleged confession was denied in the cross-examination and it was even suggested that the witness gave false evidence only because the deceased was her nephew. 9. We shall, now, examine whether the evidence of PW No. 6 is trustworthy, reliable and corroborated by any evidence of any of the PWs, given before the trial court. (i) PW No. 1, who is the nephew of the deceased, lodged the FIR to the police stating that the deceased was hacked by the appellant with the help of a sharp Dao but he completely disowned and resiled from what had been stated in the FIR, while deposing before the court. This witness stated in his evidence that he along with some villagers came to the house of the deceased and found him lying injured in his house and thereafter, the villagers took the deceased to the Assam Medical College where he succumbed to his injury. PW No. 1 also made a categorical statement in his cross-examination that he did not know who had killed the deceased and he had nothing to say against the appellant. Surprisingly, this witness had not been declared hostile by the prosecution. (ii) PW No. 2 who is not related either to the deceased or to the appellant, is an independent witness. She stated in her evidence that she did not know who had killed the deceased and she had nothing to say against the accused. (iii) PW No. 3, who is the daughter of the deceased, was aged about 17 years at the time of giving evidence before the court on 15.7.2006. This witness simply stated that when she returned from the school, she found her father dead and thereafter, she became senseless. (iii) PW No. 3, who is the daughter of the deceased, was aged about 17 years at the time of giving evidence before the court on 15.7.2006. This witness simply stated that when she returned from the school, she found her father dead and thereafter, she became senseless. In her cross-examination, she categorically stated that she did not know who had killed her father. (iv) PW No. 4 is an independent witness, not related either to the deceased or to the appellant. It is in his evidence that he along with other villagers took the injured to the hospital and the injured Puspa Konwar succumbed to his injury on the way. This witness also made a categorical statement that he did not know who had injured the deceased. (v) PW No. 5, who was the minor daughter of the deceased, simply stated that when she returned from the school, she found her father lying dead and she had no knowledge how her father died. (vi) PW No. 7, who is an independent seizure witness, deposed that while obtaining his signature in the seizure list by the police, the seized articles were not shown to him. This witness also stated that he had no knowledge as to who had killed the deceased. (vii). PW No. 8 simply stated that the police obtained his signature on a piece of paper without informing him the reason for obtaining his signature and he had nothing to say against the appellant. (viii) PW No. 9, who is a relative of the deceased, deposed that police obtained his signature on the seizure list. He further stated that he did not remember whether anything has been seized by the police or not. This witness deposed nothing against the appellant. (ix) PW No. 10 who is an independent witness, stated that when he went to the house of the deceased he saw some policemen there and his signature was obtained in a seizure list but he categorically stated that he did not see anything seized by the police. This witness also stated that he had nothing to say against the appellant. (x) PW No. 11, deposed that after hearing a hue and cry, he went to the house of the deceased and saw the deceased Puspa Konwar lying injured and thereafter, on his raising an alarm, many people came to the house of the deceased. Police also came. This witness also stated that he had nothing to say against the appellant. (x) PW No. 11, deposed that after hearing a hue and cry, he went to the house of the deceased and saw the deceased Puspa Konwar lying injured and thereafter, on his raising an alarm, many people came to the house of the deceased. Police also came. In cross-examination, he stated that in the past, there was no quarrel between the deceased and the accused and he could not say who had caused the death of the deceased. This witness also stated that the accused was deaf and she suffered from hard of hearing. It appears, from the evidence on record, that this witness was the first to reach the place of occurrence, before the arrival of other witnesses. (xi) PW No. 12 is the Doctor who performed the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. His findings are as follows: Injuries: 1. One lacerated wound measuring 4x1 cm present on the left side of occipital area of the scalp with depressed fracture of occipital bones. 2. One lacerated wound measuring 5x1 cm present on right side of occipital area of the scalp with depressed fracture of occipital bone. 3. One lacerated wound measuring 2x1 cm x scalp deed present on middle part of forehead. 4. One lacerated wound measuring 7x2 cm present on right temporal area of the scalp with depressed fracture of temporal bone. 5. One contusion measuring 15x10 cm present on middle part of the upper chest wall. 6. One incised wound measuring 8x2 cm present on middle part of the around of the neck in horizontal plane which incised the trachea. This witness opined that the death was the result from head injury and all injuries were ante mortem in nature. Injury Nos. 1 to 5 were caused by blunt object and the incised wound is caused by sharp cutting weapon and homicidal in nature. The Medical Officer also found that the head injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 10. PW No. 13 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who investigated the case. Injury Nos. 1 to 5 were caused by blunt object and the incised wound is caused by sharp cutting weapon and homicidal in nature. The Medical Officer also found that the head injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 10. PW No. 13 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who investigated the case. This witness deposed that on 19.8.2008 at about 12:45 p.m., one Shri Kamal Bora and another Shri Baba Gogoi brought the injured to the police Station in a jeep and reported that Smt. Usha Konwar, the appellant, inflicted injury to the deceased by a dao. The injured was immediately forwarded to the Assam Medical College and the necessary information was entered and GD entry No. 539 dated 19.8.2005 was made. The witness stated that the police immediately proceeded to the place of occurrence and seized the dao and an iron hammer. This witness further stated that at the site of the occurrence, one Shri Keshab Konwar, PW No. 1, lodged a formal FIR and an inquest was held by ASI, Shri Naresh Kumar on the dead body of the deceased and thereafter, a case was registered under Section 302, IPC. The appellant was arrested from the house of the deceased but the I.O. admitted that he did not notice any blood stain on the wearing cloths of the appellant when she was found and arrested from the place of occurrence. The I.O., also admitted, in his cross-examination, that the seized articles stained with blood were not sent to expert to find out whether the blood stained on the weapons was that of the blood of the deceased or not. He further admitted that he had not entered into the case diary about the seizure of the articles. The above statement of the I.O., is fatal to the prosecution case inasmuch as no evidence is brought on record to establish that the blood stained on the seized weapon was the blood of the deceased. 11. On perusal of the impugned judgment dated 6.9.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, we have noticed that the learned Sessions Judge has already held that recovery of the weapons of offence, i.e., a dao and a hammer at the instance of the accused was not proved as per procedure laid down by law. 11. On perusal of the impugned judgment dated 6.9.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, we have noticed that the learned Sessions Judge has already held that recovery of the weapons of offence, i.e., a dao and a hammer at the instance of the accused was not proved as per procedure laid down by law. That apart, the learned Sessions Judge also held that the seized articles were not sent for examination by expert in order to establish that the blood stain on the seized articles was that of the deceased. The I.O., PW 13, already admitted in his evidence that the seized articles were neither sent to expert for examination nor was the seizure recorded in the case diary. From the above, it appears that there is a serious flaw in the investigation and prosecution of the case. There cannot be any presumption about the seizure of the weapons of offence in absence of legal proof of such seizure. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge in this regard has the approval of this Court. 12. Another glaring contradiction and inconsistency, revealed by the statement of the I.O., is that one Shri Kamal Bora and another Shri Baba Gogoi brought the injured in a jeep to the Police Station and reported that the appellant inflicted injury to the deceased by means of a dao. But this statement is neither supported nor corroborated by the statement of PW No. 4, i.e.,. Baba Gogoi whose evidence is completely silent as to who had caused injury to the deceased. Another person named by the I.O., i.e., Shri Kamal Bora was not examined as PW and no explanation was given by the I.O., as to why Shri Kamal Bora was not examined. Secondly, it is in the evidence of PW No. 11 that it was he who first reached the place of occurrence before arrival of others including the cited PWs and his evidence is completely silent about making any confession by the accused appellant. There is no evidence given by any cited PWs with regard to the alleged confession of the appellant except the statement of PW No. 6, who is an interested witness being the paternal aunt of the deceased. PW No. 6 deposed that there were already about 100/120 persons gathered at the place of occurrence when she reached there. There is no evidence given by any cited PWs with regard to the alleged confession of the appellant except the statement of PW No. 6, who is an interested witness being the paternal aunt of the deceased. PW No. 6 deposed that there were already about 100/120 persons gathered at the place of occurrence when she reached there. Therefore, it was quite natural that if any confession was made by the appellant it must have been heard by other persons present at the place of occurrence. But we do not find any explanation being given by the prosecution as to why other persons, PWs who were present at the place of occurrence on the fateful day, were not examined to prove the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellant. 13. It is a settled law that necessary care and precaution should be taken by the court while appreciating the evidence of an interested witness and more so, when evidence of such interested witness is not supported and corroborated by the evidence of any other PWs examined in connection with the prosecution. The impugned judgment reveals that no such care and caution was taken by the learned Sessions Judge before accepting the evidence of PW No. 6, on which the conviction was founded. Failure to bring evidence to support and corroborate the statement of the sole interested witness is fatal to the prosecution and as a consequence, a serious doubt is cast on the reliability and acceptability of the evidence of PW No. 6. 14. The fact that the I.O., did not notice any blood stain on the wearing cloths of the appellant when she was found and arrested by the police at the place of occurrence, would be a relevant factor which can not be ignored while appreciating the evidence of the prosecution but the learned Sessions Judge had not considered this aspect as required by law. In view of the contradiction and inconsistency, as discussed above, the prosecution story and more particularly, the statement of PW No. 6, the sole interested witness, do not inspire the confidence of the court. It appears that the guilt of the accused appellant, instead of being proved with evidence, was presumed by the learned trial court without any acceptable and reliable evidence. It appears that the guilt of the accused appellant, instead of being proved with evidence, was presumed by the learned trial court without any acceptable and reliable evidence. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that there was no justification for the learned trial Judge to come to the conclusion that the charge under Section 302, IPC had been proved against the accused appellant. 15. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge of 302, IPC against the accused appellant and as such, the impugned judgment dated 6.9.2007 passed by the learned Session Judge, Dibrugarh in Sessions Case No. 140/2005 under Section 302, IPC, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment dated 6.9.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Sessions Case No. 140/2005 convicting and sentencing the accused appellant under Section 302, IPC, is hereby set aside. The accused appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if her detention is not required in any other case. 16. The criminal appeal shall stand allowed. Send down the Lower Court Records. 17. The learned amicus curiae shall be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000 as her fees. Appeal allowed