JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.07.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari in Sessions Case No. 101/2012 under Sections 302/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, simple imprisonment for another terms for committing the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default, simple imprisonment for another period of 15 (fifteen) days for the offence under Section 326 of the IPC. The appellant also convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default, simple imprisonment for another period of 15 (fifteen) days for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. We have heard Sri Kaushik Goswami, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant as well as Sri Makhan Phukan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. The records, which were called for by us, have also been carefully examined. 3. Before proceeding any further with the judgment, it would be convenient to narrate the facts of the case in brief. An Ejahar was lodged on 10.05.2012 by one Sri Som Nath Sarma (PW-2) before Nikachi Police Outpost under Mushalpur Police Station, alleging inter-alia that on 10.05.2012 at about 10.30 AM, the appellant has chased his mother-in-law, Phulmaya Tamang, with a khukri following an altercation, when she had reached the front yard of Sukraj Subba. The appellant, in presence of Sabita Subba, grievously injured his mother-in-law by cutting her neck with the khukri leading to her death. Thereafter, the appellant came to the courtyard of one Sri Ron Bahadur Tamang and grievously wounded Sri Lalit Neopane in various parts of his body with the khukri. While the wounded person was taken to the hospital, the appellant was also apprehended by the agitated public and the public assaulted him. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid Ejahar, Nikachi Outpost G.D.E. No. 117 dated 10.5.2012 was recorded and Mushalpur P.S. Case No. 36/2012 under Sections 302/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The offence in question being session triable, the matter was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari. 5. Ms. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid Ejahar, Nikachi Outpost G.D.E. No. 117 dated 10.5.2012 was recorded and Mushalpur P.S. Case No. 36/2012 under Sections 302/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The offence in question being session triable, the matter was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari. 5. Ms. Sabita Subba was examined as PW-1, who deposed that she has seen the appellant chasing the deceased with a khukri in his hand and she has raised a hue and cry and gone out to call the villagers. On returning home after about 2 hours, she has seen a lot of people gathering in the courtyard and could know that the appellant had cut his mother-in-law leading to her death. In her cross-examination, she has clarified that she was a witness only to the chasing part and did not see the actual assault. 6. Sri Som Nath Sarma, the informant, was examined as PW-2, who deposed that on getting the information about the occurrence over phone, he had gone to the police station and, thereafter, to the place of occurrence with the police and saw the dead body. He deposed that he heard from the people that the appellant had committed the offence. The police had seized a sheath along with the khukri. He deposed that he has lodged the Ejahar and had also signed the Seizure Lists (Ext.2 and Ext.3). He, however, admits in the cross-examination that the Ejahar was lodged by him in the capacity of being a village Headman and he had not seen the occurrence. 7. Sri Sona Ram Gayari was examined as PW-3. He deposed that his brother-in-law, Ron Bahadur Tamang, had come and informed him regarding the incident and that the appellant was chasing him and some other people where after this witness had gone there and he along with the other people caught the accused and handed over him to the police. 8. Sri Ram Bahadur Tamang was examined as PW-4. He deposed that the accused had come to his house with a khukri in his hand and out of fear, he had run and informed one Sona Ram Gayari about the same. He admits of not being a witness to the occurrence and that he had signed in the Seizure List (Ext.3), pertaining to the khukri in question. 9. PW-5 is Dr. He admits of not being a witness to the occurrence and that he had signed in the Seizure List (Ext.3), pertaining to the khukri in question. 9. PW-5 is Dr. Tirtha Nath Sarma, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased on 11.05.2012 when he was posted as the S.D.M. & H.O. at Nalbari and regarding the injuries, he had made the following deposition:- "A female dead body of average height with both the eyes half open. Mouth is slightly open and both incisor teeth are protruding. Rigor mortise present. One incised injury about 10 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep seen over lower half of anterior aspect of neck more towards right side. Right carotid artery and vein are completely cut. Right sternomastoid muscle is completely cut. Trachea is partially cut. In thorax trachea is partially cut. Ribs are healthy. Cranium and spinal canal-healthy. Brain-healthy. Disease or deformity, fracture and dislocation-nil." 10. In his opinion, the death was due to haemorrhage and shock following injury of the right carotid artery and vein. The postmortem report was exhibited as Ext.7. He had negated the suggestion given in the cross-examination that the injury described in the post-mortem report was possible by falling against any sharp edged substances. 11. PW-6 is Jit Bahadur Subba, who deposed of knowing the accused in question. Admittedly, the said witness was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time and was a simply witness in the seizure list. He further deposed that the khukri was seized in his presence and that he was a witness to both the seizure lists. In the cross-examination, he candidly admits that he was not an eye-witness and that his signature was obtained by the police on blank papers. He reiterated that the khukri was found lying in the paddy field. 12. PW-7 is A.S.I. Sri Ananta Ram Barman, who was the I.O. in the case. He deposes of recording the G.D. Entry and registering the case by putting his signature. He describes the action/steps taken by him as the I.O. which, amongst others, includes preparing the scratch map, injury report, examining the witnesses and recording the statement of witness Sima Tamang under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. He deposes that he had seized one wooden cover (khap) of about 14 inches from the accused person, which was tied around his waist. He deposes that he had seized one wooden cover (khap) of about 14 inches from the accused person, which was tied around his waist. In his cross-examination, the said PW-7 further admits that the seized articles were not available in the Court on the date of his examination. 13. PW-8 is Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, who was working as a Bench Assistant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nalbari and he had proved the statement made by Smt. Sabita Subba under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which was recorded in the chamber of the learned Magistrate. 14. PW-9 is Sri Nikhil Dutta, who was also a Bench Assistant and by virtue of his official position, he had proved the statement of Smt. Sima Tamang made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which was exhibited as Ext.-9. He clarifies that such recording of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was done in the chamber of the learned Magistrate. 15. PW-10 is Lalit Neopani. As per the statement of this witness, on the fateful day, when he has reached the veranda of the appellant's sister, the appellant had assaulted him by the khukri causing grave injury on his ear extending up to the neck and one portion of the earlobe was completely cut down for which he had became senseless. Thereafter, he regained his sense at GMCH, where he had to stay for about a month. 16. PW-11 is Dr. Mridul Kr. Sarma, who had examined the PW-10 and with regard to the injuries sustained by the PW-10 by the assault committed by the appellant, he found the following injuries:- "9 x 6 x 3 cm size cut injury in the parotid region including pinna up to the neck. The weapon which is used is sharp and nature of injury is grievous. Ext-10 is the injury report, Ex.10(1) is my signature." He clarifies in his cross-examination that such injuries can be caused by hitting against sharp cutting object or sharp edge. 17. After the witnesses of the prosecution side is over, the accused appellant was given the opportunity to explain under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. It is pertinent to mention herein that in such statement, the appellant in specific terms, had admitted the commission of the offence. For ready reference, the relevant questions along with answers are quoted herein-below:- “Question: PW-5 Dr. For ready reference, the relevant questions along with answers are quoted herein-below:- “Question: PW-5 Dr. Tirtha Nath Sarma, M.O. who examined the dead body of Phulmaya, has deposed that he found one incise wound, about 10 cm x 1 cm muscle deep, in the right side of the neck; that the right carotid artery and the vein are completely cut and he is of the opinion that the cause of the death was the injury she sustained in the carotid artery. What do you say? Answer: Yes, it is true that 1 killed Phulmaya by cutting her with a Khukuri. Question: PW-10 Lalit Neopane has deposed that around 10/10.30 am when he came to your sister's house, you inflicted cut on him, extending from the ear to the neck, with a Khukuri and that his ear lobe got cut. What do you say? Answer: Yes, it is true that 1 had cut him on the day of occurrence. Question: PW-11 Mridul Sharma, who examined Lalit Neopane on 11.5.2012, has deposed that he found wound, measuring 9 x 6 x 3 cm size in the parotid region including pinna up to the neck which was caused by a sharp weapon and that Ext.10 is the injury report. What do you say? Answer: It is true that I had cut Lalit." 18. He further clarifies that he was not willing to cite any defence witness. 19. At this stage, we are reminded of the principles of law laid down that the conviction cannot be sustained on the sole basis of any admission made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, it would be incumbent to see as to what are the corroborating incriminating materials, which were proved in the trial that would lead to a conclusion that it is the accused and the accused alone, who is guilty of such commission. Before going to this aspect, it would also be pertinent to put on record that from the deposition, it appears that the wife of the appellant, who was the daughter of the deceased, was not examined. Before going to this aspect, it would also be pertinent to put on record that from the deposition, it appears that the wife of the appellant, who was the daughter of the deceased, was not examined. In this connection, this Court, by an order dated 2.8.2019, had observed that the evidence of the wife of the appellant Smt. Sima Tamang may be necessary and by invoking the powers under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari, was directed to record the evidence of said Sima Tamang, more particularly, to the aspect of the mental health of the accused person, which was indicated in the statement made under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. 20. Though the said direction was attempted to be duly complied with, said Sima Tamang could not be traced out in spite of due diligence and in this regard, the Officer-in-charge, Mushalpur Police Station had forwarded the report regarding such attempt for service of notice addressed to the in-Charge of Nikachi Police Outpost. 21. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Nalbari, vide communication dated 19.08.2019, addressed to the Assistant Registrar (Administration) of this Court, informed that said Sima Tamang had left the village in the year 2012 and went to Lakhimpur to her parents house from where she got married to a person of Bangalore and that in that regard, the local Gaon Burah had also submitted a certificate. It has further been communicated that the present address of Sima Tamang could not be furnished and, accordingly, neither the summons could be issued nor the statement could be recorded. We have also noticed that the learned Trial Judge in paragraph 31 of the judgment has recorded that the statement of said Sima Tamang could not be recorded in spite of best effort from the prosecution. In view of the reports submitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari along with such finding, this Court was left with no other option then to proceed on the basis of the available materials on record. 22. So far as the principal accusation of causing death to Smt. Phulmaya Tamang with the khukri, there is no eye witness and, therefore, it would be necessary to examine as to what are the circumstantial evidence, which are available to constitute an unbroken chain that would lead to the sole conclusion of the guilt of the appellant in the instant case. 23. 23. In this case, PW-1 had deposed of witnessing the appellant chasing the deceased in the field with a khukri in his hand, for which she has raised hue and cry and had gone to call the other villagers. This statement of her has remained unshaken in the cross-examination though she candidly admits of not witnessing the actual occurrence that at the relevant time, the appellant was running with a khukri is corroborated by the evidence of PW-4, who deposed that at the time of occurrence, when the said PW-4 was at his residence, the appellant had come to his house with the khukri in his hand for which he had fled away and informed one Sona Ram Gayari, PW-3, about the same though he himself did not see the occurrence. He is also a signatory in the Seizure list pertaining to the khukri. The postmortem examination done by the PW-5 upon the deceased and the injuries described matches with those, which can be committed by the khukri in question. Though the statement made by Smt. Sima Tamang under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been admitted through the Bench Assistants of the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, we concurred with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge that in absence of corroborating the said statement of the witness herself by being PW, the same cannot be countenanced. 24. At this stage, the deposition of PW-10 acquires significant importance. PW-10, though was not an eye-witness to the principal occurrence, was himself a victim of the assault committed by the appellant, who seems to be in a kind of frenzy. It appears that after committing the offence of inflicting injures with the khukri to the deceased Phulmaya Tamang, he had also inflicted a blow with the khukri causing grave injury to the ear extending up to the neck of the said PW-10. The version of said PW-10 is fully corroborated by the deposition of PW-11, i.e. the Doctor, who had examined PW-10 and whose deposition relating to the injury in question has been accepted. It is under this circumstance that it could be relevant to consider the answers/explanations given by the appellant accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. which has been narrated above. It is under this circumstance that it could be relevant to consider the answers/explanations given by the appellant accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. which has been narrated above. The appellant accused, in clear terms has admitted to the commission of the offence and such admission read with the other materials on record would lead to only conclusion of involvement of the accused appellant with the offence in question. 25. From the proximity of the actual occurrence from the time when the appellant was seen to the chasing the deceased with the khukri in his hand coupled with the second assault on the PW-10 with the same khukri intervened by the fact of witnessing the appellant with the khukri by the PW-4, who had fled away out of fear when the accused entered into his house, leads us to come to the conclusion that the finding arrived at by the learned Magistrate, holding the appellant of the guilty is not liable to be interfered with. In our opinion, the chain of events leading from the appellant chasing the deceased with a khukri, injuries caused which are inconsistent with the khukri in question and the depositions of the PW-4 and PW-10 makes the chain complete and unbroken. Though the seized khukri should have been produced in the Court, non-production of the same may not be fatal in the instant case inasmuch as use of the same and the fact that the khukri, in question was seized, have not been controverted or rebutted by any suggestion to the PWs. or by adducing any defence witness. 26. We are also fortified by a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Dhool Singh, (2004) 12 SCC 546 in coming to the aforesaid conclusion that when the injuries in question are corroborated by the nature of the injuries as has been proved in the medical evidence, the fact of non-production of the weapon in question, which is alleged to have been used, would not be fatal to the prosecution case. In the instant case, the evidence of the Doctor (PW-5), who has conducted the post-mortem examination along with that of the Doctor, who had examined the injured PW-10, would corroborate the nature of injuries, which are likely to be caused by the weapon seized in the instant case. 27. In the instant case, the evidence of the Doctor (PW-5), who has conducted the post-mortem examination along with that of the Doctor, who had examined the injured PW-10, would corroborate the nature of injuries, which are likely to be caused by the weapon seized in the instant case. 27. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence does not call for any interference and, accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. 28. Before parting with the case, we would like to place on record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by both Sri Kaushik Goswami, learned Amicus Curiae as well as Sri Makhan Phukan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Sri Kaushik Goswami, learned Amicus Curiae, has also been entitled to honorary of Rs. 7,500/- to be paid by the State Legal Services Authority, Assam. 29. Copy of this order is to be communicated to the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari and to the Superintendent, District Jail, Nalbari, for onwards communication of the same to the accused appellant. 30. With the above observations and directions, this criminal appeal is accordingly dismissed.