Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 677 (TRI)

Rakesh Das v. State of Tripura

2015-09-16

S.TALAPATRA, U.B.SAHA

body2015
ORDER 1. The appellant, Rakesh Das, who has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for six months vide judgment dated 8.2.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar, in Sessions Trial No. 30 (NT/K) of 2012 has preferred this appeal for setting aside the said judgment and order. 2. Heard Ms. P. Ghatak, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondent-state. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.7.2012, at about 9 p.m. when the informant, Surajit Das (PW-6), was standing by the side of his gate with a torch light, at that time, he saw his cousin brother Amaresh Das coming out from the house of Shambhu Das and walking through the Kanchanbari Demdum road. At that time, suddenly the accused appellant Rakesh Das hit him with a chenni dao and his cousin brother fell down. The accused appellant Rakesh Das then fled away with that dao. He then informed his house inmates who came and saw the dead body of Amaresh. He used to see the accused Rakesh Das to move with dao and give threat to Amaresh Das before occurrence. 4. Thereafter complaint was written by Sanjit Das and on the basis of that FIR, Kumarghat P.S. registered a case being KGT P.S. Case No. 81 of 2012 under Section 302 IPC. Then the case was endorsed to SI Kajal Kumar Deb for investigation. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused Rakesh Das under Section 302 of the IPC. 5. Cognizance of offence was taken by the learned counsel by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Tripura, Kailashahar under Section 302 IPC and the case was committed to the court of the Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar as it is a case of sessions triable. 6. 5. Cognizance of offence was taken by the learned counsel by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Tripura, Kailashahar under Section 302 IPC and the case was committed to the court of the Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar as it is a case of sessions triable. 6. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing on both sides and on perusal of the police report framed the following charge against the accused appellant under Section 302 IPC which reads as under: “That you, on 12.7.2012 at about 2100 hours at Phototype Colony near the house of Paresh Das (Kanchancherra Demdum road) under Kumarghat Police station did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of Amaresh Das by means of a sharp cutting dao and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court.” 7. The accused appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The defence case is of total denial. 8. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. PW-1, Shri Sakhindra Das is the relative of the deceased, PW-2, Paresh Das heard Rakesh to give threat to Amaresh Das, PW-3, Smti. Rishma Das is the cousin sister of the deceased, PW-4, Smti. Laxmibala Das is the wife of the deceased, PW-5, Shri Bimal Das saw Rakesh with dao, PW-6, Shri Surojit Das is the eye witness, who saw Rakesh to assault Amaresh, PW-7, Shri Ashoke Das is the brother of the deceased, PW-8, Shri Gostha Adhikari is the Night Guard, who walked with the accused Rakesh and in his presence, weapon of the offence was recovered by Rakesh, PW-9, Shri Subir Das is a witness to the recovery of the weapon of the offence, PW-10, Shri Santimoy Das went to the PO hearing the cry and saw the dead body, PW-11, Shri Sujit Das, who also heard the threat given by the accused Rakesh, DW-12, Shri Sushanta Das also saw Rakesh with dao complaining against Amaresh Das, PW-13, Shri Sanjib Das saw Amaresh in the pool of blood, PW-14, Shri Kajal Kumar Deb is the IO of the case who stated about the recovery statement given by the accused Rakesh Das while weapon of offence was recovered and PW-15, Dr. Bijayadithya Dutta is the M.O. who conducted post mortem examination of the deceased. 9. Prosecution also exhibited some documents. Bijayadithya Dutta is the M.O. who conducted post mortem examination of the deceased. 9. Prosecution also exhibited some documents. Ext. P/1 is the written ejahar, Ext. P/2 is the seizure list, Ext. P/2/1 and Ext. P/2/2 are the signatures in the seizure list, Ext. P/3 is the post mortem examination report and Surathal report, Ext. P/4/1 is the signature given by the witness Bimal Das. M.O. 2 is the seized dao. 10. Defence adduced no evidence and only cross-examined the prosecution witnesses and exhibited the statement given by Bimal Das recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. 11. On completion of the evidence of the witnesses, the accused appellant was examined under Section 313, Cr. P.C. when he denied the allegations made against him. 12. Considering the materials on record and after hearing the learned counsel of the parties, the learned Sessions Judge recorded the conviction and sentence as stated supra. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order, the accused appellant has preferred the instant appeal. 13. Before proceeding further and for better appreciation of the rival contention of the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties, we proceed to record the salient feature of the findings of the trial court. The trial court for convicting the accused appellant came to the findings that the death of Amaresh Das is established from the medical evidence and also from the oral evidence. Post mortem examination report and eye witnesses statement also affirmed the death. It is also stated that from the version of the eye witness, which is supported by other corroborative evidence, it is evident that death of Amaresh Das was caused in consequence of the act of the accused Rakesh, who assaulted Amarash by a chenni dao. 14. The said chenni dao was seized and recovered on the basis of the statement of the accused himself leading to disclosure of it and the same was seized. Dao was identified by the witnesses who saw the same in the hand of the accused before commission of offence. The intention of the accused to cause death of the deceased Amaresh comes out from the evidence of the witnesses. 15. Sri Sakhindra Das, PW-1, stated that Rakesh had previous enmity with the deceased Amarash in the matter of assault on the wife of younger brother of Amaresh. He used to move with dao and threat to kill Amaresh. The intention of the accused to cause death of the deceased Amaresh comes out from the evidence of the witnesses. 15. Sri Sakhindra Das, PW-1, stated that Rakesh had previous enmity with the deceased Amarash in the matter of assault on the wife of younger brother of Amaresh. He used to move with dao and threat to kill Amaresh. Paresh Das, PW-2, also stated that Rakesh before the said occurrence threatened to cut down Amaresh. The movement of the accused near the place of occurrence and just after the occurrence was seen by the witnesses. Accused was seen with dao before the occurrence and the eye witnesses saw him to use it. From the medical evidence it is also clear that accused hit the deceased with that doo on the face and neck. It is not a case of one assault. There were three incised wounds. One on the back and neck was measuring 6" x 3" x 2½." Another on the scalp was measuring 6" x 1½" x 1½." Another on the parietal bone near the left eye was measuring 7" x 1½" x 3." Assault was homicidal in nature. From the size of the injury, it is found that maximum force was applied. Weapon of the offence was also a chheni daoa sharp cutting weapon. So, all these factors disclose the intention of the accused. Nature of weapon of the offence used and the injury caused, which was aimed at the vital part of the body with premeditation as a result of prior enmity clearly speaks about the intention of the accused to cause such injury, which in the ordinary course of nature is sufficient to cause death. Therefore, it is clear that the accused assaulted Amaresh with intention to cause his death. Thus, it is established that the accused caused death of Amaresh and he intended to cause death and knew that such injuries might cause his death. From the scrutiny and appreciation of the evidence on record, it is established that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. 16. Now let us examine and reappreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution to established its case: PW-1 Sakhindra Das got the information from PW-6 Surojit just after the occurrence, who told him that Rakesh had cut down Amaresh by dao and went away with that dao. 16. Now let us examine and reappreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution to established its case: PW-1 Sakhindra Das got the information from PW-6 Surojit just after the occurrence, who told him that Rakesh had cut down Amaresh by dao and went away with that dao. He also stated that earlier accused Rakesh Das used to move with a dao with a threat to kill Amaresh. After getting information about the incident, he rushed to the spot and saw the dead body of Amaresh lying on the road by the side of the house of Paresh Das. He noticed deep cut injury on the neck of Amaresh and whole body was soaked with blood. He came to the house of Pradhan in that night and called him. He told him that Rakesh had cut down Amaresh. He also stated that previous to the occurrence he saw accused Rakesh to move dao with a threat to kill Amaresh. The incident occurred in front of the house of Paresh Das. He also stated that Pradahan informed Kumarghat P.S. over telephone. Daragababu came and prepared the inquest report of the dead body. On the spot brother of Amaresh filed written complaint. Daragababu sent the dead body to Fotikroy Hospital. He also stated that Rakesh is his nephew. Rakesh had previous enmity with Amaresh on the matter of assault on the wife of younger brother of Amaresh while she was pregnant. Rakesh refused to pay compensation for this assault. In cross, this witness stated that earlier he filed complained against Rakesh. He also stated that P.O. was lighted with electric light. The electric light was at the distance of 10 hands from P.O. He has denied the suggestion that his son, Sanjit, did not see Rakesh while he cut down Amaresh and he did not inform anything to him. 17. PW-2 Sri Paresh Das stated in his deposition that on 12.2.2012 at about 8 p.m. he returned home and was making accounts of rubber sale with Sushanta and Sujit. In the mean time, Rakesh came with a Chenni dao and threatened that he would cut down Amaresh wherever he would be available. He also stated that Rakesh told that Amaresh had rebuked him. He further stated that Sushanta, Surojit and he told him not to do so. Then Sushanta, Surojit and Rakesh went out. In the mean time, Rakesh came with a Chenni dao and threatened that he would cut down Amaresh wherever he would be available. He also stated that Rakesh told that Amaresh had rebuked him. He further stated that Sushanta, Surojit and he told him not to do so. Then Sushanta, Surojit and Rakesh went out. Thereafter, he was watching T.V. After a while he heard a cry of Sukhindra and his son that Amaresh had been killed by Rakesh with the help of chheni dao. He went to the spot and saw the dead body of Amaresh soaked with blood and cut injury on his neck. Prodhan and other people were seen there by the side of the house of Paresh Das. Prodhan informed P.S. Daroga came, prepared inquest and took the dead body to the hospital. In cross he stated that before the cry of Sakhindra and his son, he did not hear any other sound. He saw wife of Amaresh, Sakindra and Surojit and other neighbours. He denied the suggestion that the accused Rakesh, Sujit and Sukanta did not come to his house on that date and Rakesh did not show any dao and made any threat. 18. PW-3, Smt. Rishma Das stated that deceased Amaresh was her cousin brother. About 6 months back she was cooking in her house at about 9 p.m. Amaresh came to their house and told her to give sada (tobacco). After that he went out. In the mean time she heard the cry that Amaresh had been cut down. She then called her mother to get up. Her mother went out with torch light. Her mother informed that Amaresh had been lying dead on the road being cut down by Rakesh with a dao. She went to the P.O. and saw the dead body of Amaresh, with deep cut injury over the neck. In cross she stated that there was no electric light on the road near their house. There was torch light and light in the hands of the persons who came there and with the help of their torch light she saw the dead body. 19. PW-4 Laxmibala Das, wife of the deceased, stated that Surojit (PW-6) cried out and informed her that Rakesh Das had cut down her husband with a dao. There was torch light and light in the hands of the persons who came there and with the help of their torch light she saw the dead body. 19. PW-4 Laxmibala Das, wife of the deceased, stated that Surojit (PW-6) cried out and informed her that Rakesh Das had cut down her husband with a dao. At once, she raised cry, went to the spot and saw her husband lying on the road near the house of Sambu and Paresh Das in a pool of blood with cut injury mark in the neck of her husband and he was already dead. In the cross-examination, she stated about the land dispute with Sakhindra Das, but denied about ill reputation of her husband. She also stated that Rakesh Das had assaulted her sister-in-law during last election, who was pregnant at that time. 20. Bimal Das, PW-5, stated that 6 months back at 9 p.m. when he was returning home he saw accused Rakesh of his village going from eastern side to western side holding a dao and after going home, he heard cry. He rushed to the spot and saw Amaresh lying in pool of blood oozing out from the neck. He came to learn from Surojit Das (PW-6) that Rakesh Das had cut down Amaresh. 21. Statement of this witness is recorded by the Magistrate under section 164(5) of the Cr. P.C. In the 161 Cr. P.C. statement he told Darogababu that he had seen Rakesh by the side of the house of Sakhindra, not by the side of Paresh Das. Before the Court while giving evidence he stated that he saw Rakesh by the side of the house of Paresh Das, but in the statement before the police he stated that Rakesh was seen by the side of the house of Sakhindra. 22. Surojit Das, PW-6, who is the eye witness, stated that deceased Amaresh Das was his cousin brother. Six months back at about 9 p.m. he came to the gate of his house with a torch light. At that time he saw his brother Amaresh Das coming out from the house of Sambu Das and reached at the road. 22. Surojit Das, PW-6, who is the eye witness, stated that deceased Amaresh Das was his cousin brother. Six months back at about 9 p.m. he came to the gate of his house with a torch light. At that time he saw his brother Amaresh Das coming out from the house of Sambu Das and reached at the road. He saw Rakesh Das coming out from the side of the house of Paresh Das with a Chheni dao and suddenly hit his brother Amaresh on the neck, side of the neck and also on the face, then Rakesh with that dao fled away crossing him. Out of fear he did not resist him. From the street light and the light of the house of Paresh, he saw the incident and identified Rakesh. In between the gate of Sambu and Paresh Das, his brother Amaresh fell with cut injury. He went there with cry, but his brother was already dead. He saw pool of blood. He rushed to home and called his parents. He and Amaresh lived in the same house. Neighbours also came. Information given to the P.S. then Daroga came and he submitted written complaint before the Daroga. Sanjib Das wrote it as per his dictation and he signed when he read over to him. 23. In his cross, he stated that he told Daroga that he saw the incident at night in the street light and the light in the house of Paresh Das. He denied the suggestion that accused did not flee crossing him or that he did not live in the same house of Amaresh. 24. Ashoke Das, PW-7, heard cry and saw his brother in the gate of Paresh Das in a pool of blood. 25. Gostha Adhikari, PW-8, was present when the weapon of the offence was recovered by the accused Rakesh. According to this witness, on the date of occurrence accused Rakesh went to home for taking dinner at 8 p.m. but he did not come back. He stated in his deposition that on 22.7.2012 Darogababu went to the rubber garden with Rakesh. From the side of the rubber garden in a jungle area Rakesh kept the chheni dao and he recovered it from the jungle and produced it to Darogababu. Rakesh told that he used the said dao to cut down Amaresh. After recovery the dao was seized. From the side of the rubber garden in a jungle area Rakesh kept the chheni dao and he recovered it from the jungle and produced it to Darogababu. Rakesh told that he used the said dao to cut down Amaresh. After recovery the dao was seized. The seizure list was prepared and he signed it as witness. 26. In cross he confirmed that Rakesh had recovered the dao from the jungle in presence of him and Daroga. He has denied the suggestion that Rakesh did not tell that he had assaulted Amaresh by that dao. 27. PW-9, Subir Das, was also witness to the recovery of the weapon of the offence. According to him, accused was taken to the jungle near Amarendra rubber garden and in his presence he told Darogababu that he would recover the dao from the jungle which he used to cut Amaresh. Then he recovered the dao from the jungle and produced it before Darogababu and Darogababu seized it in his presence. In the cross, he stated that he told Darogababu that Rakesh told that he used that dao for cutting Amaresh. He denied the suggestion that Rakesh did not use dao or cut down Amaresh and that he did not go to Amarendra Rubber Garden and Rakesh did not recover any dao from the jungle of the garden. 28. Santimoy Das, PW-10, saw the dead body of Amaresh in a pool of blood with cut injury in the neck. 29. Sujit Das, PW-11, stated that Rakesh was seen between 8.00 p.m. and 8.30 p.m. and he complained that Amaresh had rebuked him and requested them to ask Amaresh in this matter. After that they went to their house, heard cry and saw Amaresh lying in pool of blood with cut injury in the neck. After few days when they were in the police station, police took Rakesh Das in the rubber garden and recovered the dao and that dao was shown to them. They identified the dao which was seen in the hand of Rakesh. 30. PW-12 Shri Sushanta Das stated that six months back at the night time he and Sujit were counting rubber plants in the house of Paresh Das. At that time, Rakesh went there with a dao in his hand and complained to them that Amaresh Das had rebuked him. 30. PW-12 Shri Sushanta Das stated that six months back at the night time he and Sujit were counting rubber plants in the house of Paresh Das. At that time, Rakesh went there with a dao in his hand and complained to them that Amaresh Das had rebuked him. They told him that they would see the matter and thereafter, they went back to the house. In the house when he was watching TV he heard hue and cry on the road in front of the house of Paresh Das. He rushed there and saw that Amaresh was already murdered. He also came to learn from Surojit Das that Rakesh Das had hit Amaresh with a dao. After few days of the occurrence, the dao was discovered from the jungle near Amarendra rubber garden. Police came back with that dao and accused Rakesh and he told that dao was seen in the hand of Rakesh Das on the date of incident. This witness corroborated the statement of Surojit Das in respect of seeing the weapon of the offence in the hand of the accused just before the incident. 31. PW-13, Sanjib Das, is the scribe of the FIR. He got information that somebody had cut down Amaresh. Then he went there and saw the dead body in pool of blood. On the spot, his cousin brother (PW-6) told the fact to him and he wrote the FIR. 32. PW-14, Shri Kajal Kumar Deb is the IO of the case. He affirmed that the accused had discovered the weapon of the offence at his own and produced it before him. Accused showed the place where the dao was concealed. Photograph was taken and after recovery, the dao was handed over to him. 33. PW-15, Dr. Bijayaditthya Dutta conducted the post mortem examination. He found incised wound at the back of neck measuring 6" x 3" x 2½." He also found incised wound measuring 6" x 1½" x 1½" around the parietal bone. Another incised wound around parietal bone of left side including frontal bone along with left eye and nose measuring 7" x 1½" x 3" and he stated that in the ordinary course, such injury can cause death. Death was homicidal in nature due to haemorrhagic shock. From the Post mortem report, it is clear that it was a case of murder. Death was homicidal in nature. Death was homicidal in nature due to haemorrhagic shock. From the Post mortem report, it is clear that it was a case of murder. Death was homicidal in nature. There was three cut injuries found on the neck, face and all those injuries were incised. 34. Ms. Ghatak, learned counsel appearing for the appellant while attacking the impugned judgment submits that the learned Sessions Judge failed to consider the evidence on record in its true aspects. She also submits that motive was not proved which is essential to establish the crime in question. She further submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence of solitary eye witness, PW-6, is doubtful one, as according to her, he has seen the accused with the help of torch light in his hand as well as with the help of street light and the light of the house of PW-2, Paresh Das whereas, PW-3 Smt. Rishma Das in her cross specifically stated that there was no electric light on the road near their house. She also contended that the used weapon Chheni Dao was not shown to the accused and the same was also not sent for chemical examination. In absence of chemical examination of the dao, it cannot be said that the same was used for causing injury to the deceased at the time of alleged killing. She further submits that torch light was not seized by the I.O. of the case which also creates some doubt about the story of the prosecution. 35. In support of the afore said contention, she has placed reliance on Bipin Kumar Mondal vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 2010 SC 3638 , particularly, Para 25 and 26, which are as follows:- “25. In Sunil Kumar vs. State Government of NCT of Delhi, (2003) 11 SCC 367 : AIR 2004 SC 552 : 2003 AIR SCW 6026, this Court repelled a similar submission observing that as a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. 26. In Namdeo vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150 : AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 100 : 2007 AIR SCW 1835, this Court reiterated the similar view observing that it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence.” 36. She has also placed reliance on other decision in Madan Malakar vs. State of Tripura, (2011) 5 GLR 696 and another judgment in Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2010 SC 762 , particularly Para 15 and 17 which are as follows: “15. From the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4, it is clear that they were present at the place of occurrence at the same time. 16. PW-3 saw the accused persons from a distance of ‘20 steps’ while PW-4 saw the accused persons from a distance ‘60-70’ feet. The accused persons were allegedly identified by PWs 3 and 4. However in his evidence PW-3 never stated that he saw PW-4 in the place of occurrence. P.W 3 also stated that after coming to the place of occurrence he was shouting that the deceased had been shot at. Hearing his shouts at first cable operator Kesharwani came out there at the incident site. After him Umesh, who lives in my apartment came out. P.W 3 also stated that after coming to the place of occurrence he was shouting that the deceased had been shot at. Hearing his shouts at first cable operator Kesharwani came out there at the incident site. After him Umesh, who lives in my apartment came out. After Umesh then came Gappu of Jain family, who also reside in our same apartment and then came out my wife and after her when we were lifting Mallu Bhaiya to put him in the car then his wife Zarina also arrived there. 17. In view of the evidence discussed above it is absolutely natural for PW-4 to immediately talk with PW-3 to find out about the incident. But there is no evidence of that. PW-3 never whispered anything about the presence of PW-4 at the place of occurrence. On the other hand, evidence of PW-3 is that he with the help of PW-2, PW-17 and Gopal Jain (not examined) put the body of the deceased, half of which was hanging outside the Matiz Car, in the back of that car and some of those persons sat in the car and PW-3 drove the car to the hospital.” 37. Per contra, resisting the contention of Ms. Ghatak and supporting the impugned judgment, Mr. Debnath, learned A.P.P. that the statement made by one witness contradicted by another cannot be said to be the contradiction in view of the Section 145 of the Evidence Act. According to him, Section 145 applies only to cases where same person makes two contradictory statements either in different proceedings or in two different stages of a proceeding. In support of his aforesaid contention he has placed reliance on Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1982 SC 839 . 38. In the instant case, PW-6 specifically stated that he had seen the accused while he was hitting the deceased with the help of chheni dao. Not only that, the accused was also identified with the help of torch light as well as street light. He further contended that PW-6, the lone eye witness also disclosed the fact of killing of the deceased immediately to other witnesses which has been corroborated by the other witnesses. Not only that, the accused was also identified with the help of torch light as well as street light. He further contended that PW-6, the lone eye witness also disclosed the fact of killing of the deceased immediately to other witnesses which has been corroborated by the other witnesses. His another contention before us was that PW-2 Paresh Das in his statement specifically stated that the accused Rakesh came to his house with a chheni dao and threatened that he would cut down Amaresh wherever he would be available and this witness also rebuked Rakesh and told him not to do so. He finally contended that weapon used in the commission of offence was recovered at the instance of the accused in a lonely place of the jungle in presence of PW-8, Sri Gusto Adhikari and PW-9 Subir Das and the said chheni dao was seized by the I.O of the case and both the seizure witnesses stated that the accused had taken the I.O. along with them to the jungle near Amarendra rubber garden and in presence of them, the accused told Daroga Babu that he would recover the dao which was used in cutting Amaresh. 39. He also submits that when there is a direct evidence regarding the use of chenni dao by the accused, it is not necessary for the investigating authority to send the said chenni dao for chemical examination, particularly, when the said chenni dao was recovered at the instance of the accused in presence of independent witnesses. 40. He finally contended that cumulative effect of the evidence produced by the prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, it would be proper to uphold the impugned judgment. 41. In Bipin Kumar Mandal (supra), the Apex Court stated, inter alia, that it is settled legal position that even if the absence of motive as alleged is accepted that is of no consequence and pales into insignificance when direct evidence establishes the crime. Therefore, in case there direct trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to commission of an offence, the motive part loses its significance. 42. In the instant case, admittedly, the direct trustworthy evidence is available from the statement of PW-6 who is the eye witness of the occurrence. Therefore, in case there direct trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to commission of an offence, the motive part loses its significance. 42. In the instant case, admittedly, the direct trustworthy evidence is available from the statement of PW-6 who is the eye witness of the occurrence. Even in absence of motive of the occurrence, the ocular testimony of PW-6 as to the occurrence could not be discarded only by the reason of absence of motive. Thus, Para 25 and 26 of Bipin Kumar Mandal (supra) relied on by Ms. Ghatak, in no way help the case of the appellant. 43. We have also considered the case of Musheer Khan (supra). According to us, the fact of the said case is totally different than the case in hand and in the said case, eye witness remained at the place of occurrence as a passive spectator whereas, in the instant case, the star witness PW-6 after seeing the occurrence cried out and disclosed the facts to the witnesses who were assembled at the spot just immediately after the occurrence. 44. We are also unable to accept the contention of Ms. Ghatak that no conviction can be recorded only on the basis of statement of solitary witness, PW-6. The instant case is not wholly based on evidence of solitary witnesses, rather the evidence of PW-6 is corroborated by all other witnesses including the evidence adduced by the Medical Officer PW-15, who stated in his evidence that he had examined and conducted the postmortem over the dead body of deceased Amaresh Das at Fatikroy Morgue. He found one incised wound at the back of neck which was measured 6" x 3" x 2½" one incise wound to temporal bone along with pinna of right side, measuring 6" x 1½" x 1" incise wound around parietal bone of left side including frontal bone along with left eye including nose measuring 7" x 1½" x 3." According to this witness, such injury in ordinary course may cause death and the death was homicidal in nature. 45. It is settled principle of law that statement of an accused before police official is not admissible in view of Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, but the said prohibition is, however, lifted to some extent by Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which reads thus: “27. 45. It is settled principle of law that statement of an accused before police official is not admissible in view of Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, but the said prohibition is, however, lifted to some extent by Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which reads thus: “27. How much of information received from accused may be proved — Provided that, when any fact is disposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.” In the light of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, whatever information given by the accused in consequence of which a fact is discovered only would be admissible in the evidence, whether such information amounts to confession or not. The basic idea embedded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered in a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact it becomes a reliable information, State of Maharashtra vs. Damu, (2000) 6 SCC 269 . The fact discovered as envisaged under Section 27 of the Evidence Act embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect.” 46. In the instant case, the discovered fact relating to chenni dao is proved that it is the accused who had the knowledge about the used weapon and the said weapon admittedly discovered at his instance. 47. We have also considered the evidence of PW-8 and 9, the seizure witnesses before whom the accused made disclosure statement regarding the recovery of the weapons used in the commission of offence in presence of the I.O of the case. It is also established by the prosecution that before the alleged incident, the accused was found with dao. 47. We have also considered the evidence of PW-8 and 9, the seizure witnesses before whom the accused made disclosure statement regarding the recovery of the weapons used in the commission of offence in presence of the I.O of the case. It is also established by the prosecution that before the alleged incident, the accused was found with dao. Not only that, PW-2 Paresh in his statement specifically stated that before the incident the accused went to his house with chenni dao and threatened that he would cut down Amaresh wherever he would be available. 48. In para-13 of Mohanlal (supra), the Apex court while discussing about Section 145 of the Evidence Act stated, inter alia:- “13. It is obvious from a perusal of Section 145 that it applies only to cases where the same person makes two contradictory statements either in different proceedings or in two different stages of a proceeding. If the maker of a statement is sought to be contradicted, his attention should be drawn to his previous statement under Section 145. In other words, where the statement made by a person or witness is contradicted not by his own statement but by the statement of another prosecution witness, the question of the application of S. 145 does not arise. To illustrate, we might give an instance—suppose A, a prosecution witness, makes a particular statement regarding the part played by an accused but another witness B makes a statement which is inconsistent with the statement made by A, in such a case Section 145 of the Evidence Act is not at all attracted. Indeed, if the interpretation placed by the High Court is accepted, then it will be extremely difficult for an accused or a party to rely on the inter se contradiction of various witnesses and every time when the contradiction is made, the previous witness would have to be recalled for the purpose of contradiction. This was neither the purport nor the object of S. 145 of the Evidence Act.” 49. As regards the statement of PW-6 before the court, we are of the opinion that there is no such major contradiction in the evidence of that witness. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. We have to see as to whether such discrepancies are false in nature or not. As regards the statement of PW-6 before the court, we are of the opinion that there is no such major contradiction in the evidence of that witness. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. We have to see as to whether such discrepancies are false in nature or not. In the instant case, we do not find any such discrepancy in the evidence of PW-6. 50. We are in full agreement with the findings of the Court below that it is the accused who committed the murder of the deceased in presence of PW-6. We found nothing on record that the accused was unnecessary implicated with the case. 51. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the facts and circumstances of the case do not present any special feature warranting the review of the judgment/order of the learned Sessions Judge. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Send down the L.C. records.