Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 250 (GAU)

Monirul Ahmed v. State Of Assam

2021-03-12

N.KOTISWAR SINGH, SOUMITRA SAIKIA

body2021
JUDGMENT Soumitra Saikia, J. - This criminal appeal (J) under Section 374 of Cr. P.C is preferred by the accused/appellant-Monirul Ahmed (in jail) being aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 20.12.2017 of the Sessions Judge, Chirang, Kajalgaon, whereby the appellant was found guilty for committing offences under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and was convicted for the said offence. By the said Judgment the Sessions Judge, Chirang, Kajalgaon sentenced the accused person, for the offence committed under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) year. 2. The prosecution case as projected is that on 12.10.2016 the informant-Md. Raham Ali was lodged an FIR stating therein that on 11.10.2016 around 11.30 a.m his daughters, Rezia Khatun and Firoza Khatun went to the Birinchi River to take a bath. While they were bathing, one Monirul Ahmed, the husband of Rezia Khatun armed with a khukuri appeared there all of a sudden and dealt a blow on the left hand of Rezia Khatun. When Firoza Khatun tried to resist him, the accused shoved her down and threatened her that he would cut her if she adduced evidence against him. He dealt 3 (three) more blows to Rezia Khatun on her head. Seeing that Firoza Khatun went to the house of Sri Jagananda Adhikary raising uproar and informed that Rezia Khatun has been assaulted to death with a khukuri by her husband, Monirul. Hearing this, Jagananda went to the bank of the river and on seeing that incident he ran to the house of the informant and informed him. The informant in the FIR stated that Rezia Khatun had been in his house for 1 and months before the incident. 3. The said FIR was initially received and registered at Bengtol Out-Post as GDE No. 281 dated 12.10.2016 and thereafter forwarded to Officer-in-Charge, Runikhata Police Station. The same was received and registered as Runikhata Police Station case No. 56/2016 under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 4. The matter was investigated by the police and charge under one head was filed against the accused. The case was charge-sheeted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and the case proceeded for trial. The same was received and registered as Runikhata Police Station case No. 56/2016 under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 4. The matter was investigated by the police and charge under one head was filed against the accused. The case was charge-sheeted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and the case proceeded for trial. The prosecution supported its case by as many as 14 (fourteen) witnesses and Inquest Report, Post Mortem Report etc. On the evidences adduced in the trial, the Sessions Court, Chirang by Judgment dated 20.12.2017 convicted the accused for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) year for his offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 5. P.W.1, Md. Raham Ali is the informant. He deposed that the deceased-Rezia Khatun and the injured-Firoza Khatun were his daughters. He knew the accused-Monirul Ahmed, who was the son-in-law and who married his deceased daughter-Rezia Khatun about 7 (seven) months back from the date of occurrence. He deposed that the occurrence took place about 9 months back at about 11.30 a.m in the morning. He deposed that he was present in his house and the deceased-Rezia during that period was staying in his house. At the time of occurrence his deceased daughter, Rezia along with her sister, Firoza went to take bath in the river Birinchi, which is situated about 100 metres from her house. After about half an hour he heard Jagananda Adhikary raising hue and cry saying that Rezia was assaulted by the accused. On hearing this he rushed to the spot near the river and saw her daughter, Rezia floating in the river water and blood oozing from her body. After hearing hue and cry many people assembled at the place of occurrence. Thereafter, he along with the mother of the deceased and other villagers brought out the deceased from the river and kept her on the ground of the river bank. At that time, she was alive but within 1 / 2 minutes she expired. He saw the injuries on the head and the left arm of the body of the deceased. After some time, he met Firoza and asked her. At that time, she was alive but within 1 / 2 minutes she expired. He saw the injuries on the head and the left arm of the body of the deceased. After some time, he met Firoza and asked her. She reported that while she along with the deceased- Rezia Khatun were taking bath in the river, the accused-Monirul Ahmed went there with a khukuri and first assaulted Rezia with the khukuri and when she (Firoza) tried to resist the accused, she was also attacked and assaulted by the deceased. The informant further deposed that the deceased-Rezia Khatun was residing with him since about 1 /2 months from the date of occurrence. She was residing at his house leaving the house of the accused due to the assault and torture by the accused upon her. He accordingly lodged an FIR in connection with the case before Bengtol Out-Post. He identified the FIR and his signature. He deposed that after the FIR, police came at the place of occurrence along with the Magistrate and undertook Inquest on the dead body of the deceased-Rezia Khatun in his presence and he also put his signature on the Inquest. He identified the Inquest and his signature. He deposed that during the investigation he gave his statement before the police. 5.1. In his cross-examination, the P.W.1 stated that Rezia Khatun was his only daughter and Firoza is his niece, who resides nearby his house. The marriage between the deceased daughter and the accused was solemnized as per social rights and customs. Due to assault and torture, his daughter Rezia Khatun filed a Criminal Case under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code against the accused person. He testified that there were bamboo groves and jungles at the side of the place of occurrence and when Rezia with Firoza went to the river for taking bath he did not see them. He testified that when his deceased daughter was rescued from the water and kept on the ground on the river bank before her death, she was not in a position to speak. He testified that when his deceased daughter was rescued from the water and kept on the ground on the river bank before her death, she was not in a position to speak. He testified that he could not recollect as to whether he told the Investigation Officer that she met Firoza and when asked her, she reported that she along with his deceased daughter were taking bath in the river and just then the accused, Monirul Ahmed went there with khukuri and first assaulted Rezia and when she tried to resist the accused she was also attacked and assaulted by the accused. He testified that the FIR before the police was lodged on the following day of the occurrence as Bengtol Out-Post is at a distance of 2 kms from his house. He testified that he is illiterate but he can put his signature only. He denied the suggestion that the accused did not assault his daughter with a khukuri and that he did not cause death of the deceased daughter, Rezia Khatun. 6. P.W.2, Firoza Khatun in her examination-in-chief deposed that the informant, Raham Ali was his paternal Uncle. She deposed that the deceased Rezia Khatun was the daughter of the informant. She identified the accused-Monirul Ahmed and that he was the husband of Rezia Khatun, the deceased. She deposed that the occurrence took place about 9 months back at about 11/11.30 a.m. She deposed that the house of the informant is nearby her house. At the time of occurrence Rezia was residing in the house of her father, Raham Ali. On the date of the occurrence at about 11/11.30 a.m she along with Rezia went to take bath at the river Birinchi which is situated nearby her house. While they taking bath in the river at that time accused, Monirul armed with khukuri went near them and struck a blow on the left hand of Rezia with the khukuri . When P.W.2 tried to obstruct him, he pushed her and she fell down. Monirul also inflicted 2/3 numbers of khukuri blows on the head of Rezia and blood was oozing out from her injury and Rezia fell down on the water. P.W.2 thereafter raised hue and cry and rushed to the house of Jagananda Adhikary, which is nearby the place of occurrence and informed him about the incident. Monirul also inflicted 2/3 numbers of khukuri blows on the head of Rezia and blood was oozing out from her injury and Rezia fell down on the water. P.W.2 thereafter raised hue and cry and rushed to the house of Jagananda Adhikary, which is nearby the place of occurrence and informed him about the incident. Jagananda Adhikary thereafter went from his house to the place of occurrence and subsequently went to the house of the informant and reported the incident. P.W.2 deposed that subsequently Rezia succumbed to her injuries. She deposed that police came to the place of occurrence and later produced her before the court where she gave her statement before the Magistrate in connection with the incident. She identified her statement and signature on the statement. She deposed that she witnessed the incident of murder with her own eyes. 6.1. In her cross-examination P.W.2 testified that the parental house of the deceased- Rezia and her house were adjacent to each other. She stated that there are houses of several families in between her house and river Birinchi where they went to take bath. There are ghats in the river and in that ghat village people used to wash clothes and take bath. She stated that usually the village people used to remain at the ghats for washing and bathing at the time when they went to the river to take bath. She testified that the ghat they were bathing can be seen from the ghat situated in the opposite direction. She testified that two other villagers saw them going to the river to take bath together. She testified that at the time of occurrence she was a student of class-IX and that if she raised hue and cry it could be heard from the house situated nearby the ghat. She denied the suggestion that on the date of occurrence the accused, Monirul did not assault his wife with a khukuri and did not kill her or that she deposed falsely in connection with the case. 7. P.W.3, Jagananda Adhikary in his deposition deposed that he is the neighbour of the informant. He deposed that the deceased, Rezia Khatun was the daughter of the informant. He identified the accused, Monirul Ahmed standing in the dock and that he was the husband of the deceased, Rezia Khatun. 7. P.W.3, Jagananda Adhikary in his deposition deposed that he is the neighbour of the informant. He deposed that the deceased, Rezia Khatun was the daughter of the informant. He identified the accused, Monirul Ahmed standing in the dock and that he was the husband of the deceased, Rezia Khatun. He deposed that the occurrence took place on a day of Vijaya Dashami in the month of Ahin , last year at about 11 a.m to 12 p.m of the day. At the time he was milking his pet cow when Firoza Khatun hurriedly came to his house raising hue and cry and told him that the accused Monirul inflicted cut injury to Rezia Khatun at the ghat of river Birinchi. Hearing this he along with Firoza went to the place of occurrence which was at the ghat of the river Birinchi and saw that Rezia was floating at the river water and blood was oozing from her body, which got mixed with the river water. Seeing this he immediately rushed to the house of the informant, Raham Ali, who is the father of the injured, Rezia Khatun and informed him about the incident and returned back to the spot. Parents of Rezia also arrived there. Thereafter with the help of the village people, the victim-Rezia Khatun was brought out from the river and kept on the ground of the river bank. Although she was alive at that time, however after a while she expired. He deposed that he saw the cut injuries on the head and the left arm of the body of the deceased. Subsequently police and Magistrate came to the spot in connection with this case. He deposed that police examined him and he gave statement before the police in connection with the case. He further deposed that he had also given his statement before the Magistrate. He identified his statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C as well as his signature. He deposed that the place of occurrence was situated at a distance of about 80/100 haat from his house. 7.1. In his cross-examination P.W.3 testified that his house is just near the river bank of Birinchi River. He testified that the inhabitants of the village usually wash their clothes and also bathe in the river ghat of the Birinchi River. He deposed that the place of occurrence was situated at a distance of about 80/100 haat from his house. 7.1. In his cross-examination P.W.3 testified that his house is just near the river bank of Birinchi River. He testified that the inhabitants of the village usually wash their clothes and also bathe in the river ghat of the Birinchi River. He testified that before Firoza came to his house hurriedly by raising hue and cry, he did not hear any hue and cry coming from the place of occurrence. He testified that all members of his family including his wife and children were present at home. He denied the suggestion that Firoza did not come to his house or she did not inform him that the accused inflicted cut injury to Rezia or that he did not come to the place of occurrence and did not see Rezia there. He also denied the suggestion that he did not go to the house of the parents of Rezia and informed them about the incident. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely in the case. 8. P.W.4, Md. Ajibor Ali in his examination-in-chief deposed that he knew informant, Raham Ali, who is his neighbour. He deposed that the deceased, Rezia Khatun was the daughter of the informant. He also identified the accused Monirul Ahmed, who was standing in the dock, as the husband of Rezia Khatun. He deposed that the occurrence took place about 10 months from the day of the deposition. On that day there was Vijoya Dashami and the time of occurrence was about 11/11.30 a.m in the day. He deposed that on the day he was present at Bengtol market. He received a phone call from the father of Rezia that she was killed by inflicting cut injury. He immediately came to the place of occurrence, which is at the bank of the river Birinchi. He deposed that at that time nearly 20/22 persons of the villagers assembled at the place of occurrence. He deposed that when he arrived there, he saw the dead body of Rejia lying on the ground at the place of occurrence. He also saw the cut injuries on the head and left hand of the deceased and blood oozing out there from. Later he heard from Firoza that accused, Monirul inflicted cut injuries on his wife, Rezia. He deposed that when he arrived there, he saw the dead body of Rejia lying on the ground at the place of occurrence. He also saw the cut injuries on the head and left hand of the deceased and blood oozing out there from. Later he heard from Firoza that accused, Monirul inflicted cut injuries on his wife, Rezia. Subsequently, the Police and Magistrate came to the spot and conducted the Inquest on the dead body of the deceased woman. He put his signature as a witness to the Inquest. He identified the Inquest report as well as his signature. He deposed that on the next day on being called by the police he along with the police and the accused went near the Deolguri Koborsthan and as shown by the accused the khukuri along with its cover was recovered there in his presence. Subsequently the police seized the khukuri and the cover by preparing a seizure list and he identified the seizure list and his signature as well as the seized articles namely the khukuri with a wooden handle and the khukuri cover was made with wood along with the blue coloured ribbon. He deposed that during the investigation police examined him and he gave statement before the police. He also deposed that on the day of occurrence it was raining. 8.1. In his cross-examination he stated that the deceased, Rezia was his niece. He testified that the father (informant) of Rezia had filed a case against the accused, Monirul prior to the date of occurrence alleging that the accused assaulted Rezia. After filing of that case Rezia used to stay at her father s house. He testified that he heard that police arrested the accused on the same day when Rezia was killed. He testified that he put his signature on the seizure list on the following day of the occurrence at around 6/6.30 a.m in the morning. He denied the suggestion that Monirul did not kill his wife by inflicting cut injuries. He testified that the deceased Rezia was buried in the said Deolguri Koborsthan, wherefrom material exhibits 1 and 2 were recovered. He testified that at that time blood stains were seen on material exhibit 1 (khukuri). 9. P.W.5, Md. Hafez Miya deposed that he knew Raham Ali, the informant, who is his neighbour. He deposed that deceased, Rezia Khatun was the daughter of the informant. He testified that at that time blood stains were seen on material exhibit 1 (khukuri). 9. P.W.5, Md. Hafez Miya deposed that he knew Raham Ali, the informant, who is his neighbour. He deposed that deceased, Rezia Khatun was the daughter of the informant. He also identified the husband of Rezia Khatun. He deposed that the occurrence took place on the day of Vijoya Dashami of the last year. The occurrence took place around 11/11.30 a.m of the day. He deposed that on that day he was present at another place while working as a labour. He came home for lunch and thereafter again went out. While he was proceeding on the road he met the elder brother of the informant namely, Morgob Ali running across the road with a lathi on his hand. On being asked by P.W.5, Morgob Ali told that the accused Monirul killed his wife Rezia by inflicting cut injury and then floated her in the river. P.W.5 deposed that he immediately came to the place of occurrence which is on the bank of the river Birinchi. He deposed that at the time nearly 80/90 persons were assembled in the place of occurrence. When he arrived there he saw the dead body of Rezia lying on the ground of the place of occurrence. He deposed that he also saw cut injuries on her head and left hand of the deceased with blood oozing out there from. He deposed that he came to know from another person that the accused inflicted cut injuries on the deceased by means of a khukuri . Subsequently, Police and Magistrate came to the spot and the Magistrate did Inquest on the dead body of the deceased woman and put his thumb impression on the Inquest report. He deposed that on the following day at around 6/6.30 a.m he along with the police and the accused Monirul went at the Deolguri Koborsthan and as shown by the accused the khukuri along with its cover was recovered in his presence. He deposed that the police seized the khukuri and prepared the seizure list, where P.W.5 put his signature as a witness. P.W.5 identified the seized articles in the court. He deposed that police examined him and he gave his statement before the Police. He deposed that on the day of occurrence it was raining. He deposed that the police seized the khukuri and prepared the seizure list, where P.W.5 put his signature as a witness. P.W.5 identified the seized articles in the court. He deposed that police examined him and he gave his statement before the Police. He deposed that on the day of occurrence it was raining. He deposed that he heard that when the deceased, Rezia was taking bath in the ghats of river Birinchi at that time she was assaulted and killed by the accused and at that time Rezia was accompanied by Firoza. 9.1. In his cross-examination P.W.5 testified that he went to Deolguri Koborsthan with the police and the accused and at that time Ajibor, Samsul and Hamidul etc. were present there. Police brought out the seized khukuri on being shown by the accused. He stated that he saw the blood stain in the khukuri . He denied the suggestion that he did not state before the Investigation Officer that on the date of occurrence he met elder brother of the informant, namely, Morgob Ali running across the road with a lathi on his hand and on being asked Morgob Ali told him that the accused, Monirul killed his wife, Rezia by inflicting cut injuries and then floated her in the river. He testified that witness, Firoza was his younger sister and subsequently he asked Firoza about the incident. 10. P.W.6, Md. Hamidul Ali Mazid deposed that he knew the informant, Raham Ali as they both belong to the same village. He deposed that deceased Rezia Khatun was the daughter of the informant. He identified the accused-Monirul Ahmed. He deposed that the occurrence took place at around 12 p.m of the day. At the time of occurrence, he was present in his shop situated at Bengtol bazar. When he was returning home after closing his shop at around 12 p.m, he saw people running on the road and then came to know that the Rezia Khatun was killed by her husband, Monirul Ahmed at the river Birinchi. He deposed that when he arrived at the place of occurrence, he saw Rezia lying dead on the bank of river Birinchi with blood oozing injuries and many people gathered there. He saw cut injuries on the left arm and on the head of the deceased with profuse bleeding. He deposed that when he arrived at the place of occurrence, he saw Rezia lying dead on the bank of river Birinchi with blood oozing injuries and many people gathered there. He saw cut injuries on the left arm and on the head of the deceased with profuse bleeding. He deposed that he heard from one girl of the village namely, Firoza, who was present along with the deceased at the time of occurrence and on being asked she told him that she along with deceased, Rezia were taking bath in the river water and at that time husband of Rezia came and inflicted cut injury to Rezia. Later on he heard that Monirul on the same day surrendered at the Bengtol Police OutPost in connection with the case. P.W.6 also deposed that he went to the police station and the police seized the mobile phone of the accused by preparing seizure list and obtaining his signature on the seizure list. He identified the seizure list and his signature as well as he seized mobile phone as material exhibit.3. He deposed that on the following day at around 6 a.m police along with the accused went to the village. Police called him to accompany them and on being led by the accused he along with the police and the accused person went to Deolguri Koborsthan. There he along with Samsul Hoque, Ajibar Ali and Hafej Miya were also present along with the police. He deposed that at Deolguri Koborsthan the accused on being asked by the police showed a place covered with jungle and confessed that the khukuri by which he assaulted Rezia was kept concealed there. Thereafter on being shown by the accused, police recovered the khukuri with the wooden cover. Police then prepared the seizure list at the spot and seized the recovered khukuri and obtained his signature on the seizure list. P.W.6 identify the seizure list as well as his signature. He also identified the khukuri and the wooden cover wrapped with a blue coloured rope as material exhibit 1 and 2. He deposed that in connection with the case he had given his statement before the police. He also deposed that Rezia was staying in her parents house at the time of deposition. 10.1. He also identified the khukuri and the wooden cover wrapped with a blue coloured rope as material exhibit 1 and 2. He deposed that in connection with the case he had given his statement before the police. He also deposed that Rezia was staying in her parents house at the time of deposition. 10.1. In his cross-examination, P.W.6 testified that he had heard that before occurrence, there occurred dispute between the deceased-Rezia and the accused person for which Rezia filed a case against the accused. He testified that he could not say the name of the person specifically from whom he heard that the accused persons killed his wife. He also denied the suggestion that he did not make any statement before the police that he went to the place of occurrence and on being asked, Firoza told him that while she along with Rezia were taking bath, at that time the accused came and inflicted cut injuries to Rezia. He testified that when he went to the Police Station, the Police seized the mobile of the accused and at that time the accused did not state anything before him. He also testified that he did not see the blood stains on the khukuri when it was recovered by the police. 11. P.W.7, Md. Moyen Ali deposed that he knew the informant, Raham Ali as he belongs to the same village. He deposed that deceased, Rezia Khatun was the daughter of the informant. He identified the accused standing in the dock to be the husband of Rezia Khatun. He deposed that the occurrence took place at around 11/11.30 a.m. on the day of Vijoya Dashami of the previous year. At the time of occurrence he was at Bengtol Bazar where he heard people saying Rezia was killed by her husband, Monirul at the river Birinchi. He deposed that he went to the place of occurrence and saw Rezia lying death on the bank of the river Birinchi and blood oozing injuries and many people had gathered there. He saw cut injury on the left arm and on the head of the deceased with profuse bleeding. He deposed that Police and Magistrate have arrived at the place of occurrence and later on he heard that Monirul on the same day had surrendered at the Bengtol Police Out-Post in connection with the case. He saw cut injury on the left arm and on the head of the deceased with profuse bleeding. He deposed that Police and Magistrate have arrived at the place of occurrence and later on he heard that Monirul on the same day had surrendered at the Bengtol Police Out-Post in connection with the case. He deposed that he went to the police station and the police had seized the mobile phone by preparing the seizure list and obtained his signature. He identified the seizure list and his signature as well as the mobile phone. He deposed that the police recorded his statement in connection with the case and that he had heard that the time of occurrence Rezia was taking bath at Birinchi River along with her cousin sister, Firoza. 11.1. In his cross-examination, P.W.6 could not name the person from whom he heard about the incident. He also testified that he did not himself asked Firoza about the incident. He testified that when the police obtain his signature on the seizure list the accused did not disclose anything before him/them. 12. P.W.8, Md. Maktar Ali in his deposition deposed that he knew the informant, Raham Ali as he belongs to the same village. He deposed that deceased, Rezia Khatun was the daughter of the informant and that the accused Monirul was the husband of Rezia Khatun. He deposed that the occurrence took place on the day of Vijoya Dashami last year and that it had taken place at about 11/11.30 a.m of the day. At the time of occurrence, he was present at Bengtol Bazar selling fish and there he heard people saying that Rezia was killed by her husband, Monirul Ahmed at river Birinchi while she was taking bath there. He deposed that he heard Monirul inflict cut injury to Rezia with khukuri . He then went to the place of occurrence which is near the river Birinchi. He deposed that when he arrived at the place of occurrence he saw Rezia lying dead on the bank of the river Birinchi with blood oozing injuries and many people had gathered there. He saw the cut injuries on the left arm and on the head of the deceased with profuse bleeding. He deposed that when he arrived at the place of occurrence he saw Rezia lying dead on the bank of the river Birinchi with blood oozing injuries and many people had gathered there. He saw the cut injuries on the left arm and on the head of the deceased with profuse bleeding. He deposed that Police and Magistrate arrived at the place of occurrence and later on he heard that Monirul on the same day surrender at Bengtol Police Out-Post in connection with the case. He deposed that he went to the Police Station and was the seizure witness to the mobile phone seized by the police from the accused. He identified the seizure list and his signature as well as the mobile phone in Court. He deposed that during investigation police recorded his statement and that at the time of occurrence Rezia was taking bath at Birinchi River along with another girl of the same village. 12.1. In his cross-examination he testified that he could not mention the person from whom he heard about the incident. He denied the suggestion that before police he had not stated that he went to the place of occurrence and saw the deceased lying there with the injuries on her body. He testified that when he went to the Police Station at the time Monirul did not disclose anything before him. 13. P.W.9, Md. Samsul Hoque, is the gaonburah of village-Deolguri. He knew Raham Ali, the informant as they belong to the same village and as well as Rezia Khatun who was the daughter of the informant. He also knew the accused Monirul Ahmed, who was the husband of Rezia Khatun. He deposed that the occurrence took place on the day of Vijoya Dashami of the last year and at the time of the occurrence he was the village Gaonburah. He deposed that at the time of occurrence he was in Dhaligaon and the in-charge of Bengtol Police OutPost informed him over telephone that at the village, the accused, Monirul killed his wife, Rezia Khatun. The in-charge asked him to come to his village immediately. Accordingly, he went to the Bengtol Police Station and saw the village people of the village gathered there. He deposed that he had seen the dead body of the deceased, Rezia Khatun at the at the Police vehicle. The in-charge asked him to come to his village immediately. Accordingly, he went to the Bengtol Police Station and saw the village people of the village gathered there. He deposed that he had seen the dead body of the deceased, Rezia Khatun at the at the Police vehicle. He also saw the cut injuries on the head and on the hand of the deceased woman. He had heard that the deceased, Rezia Khatun with another girl went to Birinchi River for taking bath at day time and then Monirul Ahmed came there and attacked Rezia with sharp weapon. He deposed that on the following day Police being accompanied by the accused, Monirul went to his house and on being asked he along with Police went to Deolguri Koborsthan on being led by the accused. At the place shown by the accused in the Deolguri Koborsthan, the khukuri was recovered along with the cover. Police seized the khukuri and the cover by preparing seizure list. The P.W.9 identified his signature and the seizure list as well as the material exhibits 1 and 2 and he deposed that in connection with the case he had given the statement before the police. 13.1. In his cross-examination he testified that he could not specifically say from whom he had heard that the accused person killed his wife with a sharp instrument while taking bath in the river Birinchi but all the village people were taking about such facts. He testified that on the following day when he along with the police and the accused went to Deolguri Koborsthan and at that time Hamidul Majid was also present with them. He testified that he did not see any blood stain on the seized khukuri and it is a fact that the earlier night there was heavy rain in the area. 14. P.W.10, Md. Khalilur Rahman deposed that he knew the informant, Raham Ali. He deposed that the deceased Rezia Khatun was the daughter of the informant and accused Monirul Ahmed was the husband of Rezia. The occurrence took place on 11.10.2016. He deposed that after the occurrence took place, the informant along with village people came to his house. 14. P.W.10, Md. Khalilur Rahman deposed that he knew the informant, Raham Ali. He deposed that the deceased Rezia Khatun was the daughter of the informant and accused Monirul Ahmed was the husband of Rezia. The occurrence took place on 11.10.2016. He deposed that after the occurrence took place, the informant along with village people came to his house. The informant, Rohom Ali informed him that on the date of occurrence at 11.30 a.m while his daughter Rezia Khatun along with another girl, Firoza Khatun were taking bath in the river Birinchi and at that time accused, Monirul went there and assaulted her with khukuri . He also stated that the accused, Monirul also inflicted khukuri blow on the head and hand of Rezia. Accordingly, he was asked to write the FIR and as per dictation P.W.10 wrote the FIR. After he wrote the FIR it was read over to the informant and the other person and accordingly informant Raham Ali put his signature in the FIR. P.W.10 also put his signature in the FIR as a scriber. He identified his signature and deposed that he gave his statement to the police in connection with the case. 14.1. In his cross-examination the P.W.10 deposed that he did not mention in the FIR that he read over the contents of the FIR to the informant and other persons present after it was written by him. In the FIR it was not mentioned regarding the delay in filing the FIR. 15. P.W.11, Sri Karmadev Brahma, who was serving as a Circle Officer, Sidly Revenue Circle and posted at Sidly in Chirang District. He deposed that on the day of occurrence at about 1.20 p.m as per the direction of the then District Magistrate, Chirang as well as the requisition from O/C, Runikhata, he conducted Inquest over the dead body of Rezia Khatun aged about 18 years, wife of-Md. Monirul Ahmed of village-Deolguri under P.S-Runikhata on being identified by Md. Raham Ali, son of-Late Hasim Ali in reference to Bangtol Police OutPost vide GDE No. 253 dated 11.10.2016. He deposed that the Inquest was done at the river bank of Birinchi River at village-Deolguri. He deposed regarding the description of the dead body as mentioned in the Inquest report. He also described the multiple injuries on the head and a deep cut mark on the left hand. He deposed that the Inquest was done at the river bank of Birinchi River at village-Deolguri. He deposed regarding the description of the dead body as mentioned in the Inquest report. He also described the multiple injuries on the head and a deep cut mark on the left hand. He deposed that after the inquest dead body was handed over to the police for taking necessary steps for conducting the Post Mortem. At the time of Inquest, witnesses namely, Md. Raham Ali, Md. Ajibor Ali, Hafez Miya, UBC/198 Babulal Basumatary were present. He deposed that except Hafez Miya other witnesses put their signatures on the Inquest report prepared by him while Hafez Miya put his thumb impression on the Inquest Report. He identified the Inquest Report as well as his signature. In the Inquest Report P.W.11 recorded the following injuries:- 1. Three deep cut injuries measuring 8 X 3 X 3 cm, 8 X 2 X 1 and 4.5 X 2 X 1 c.m in left parietal region. 2. Two cut injuries measuring 6 X 5 X 3 cm, 16 X 3 X 3 cm. at occipital region. 3. One deep cut injury measuring 6 X 5 X 5 cm. in left elbow joint which leads to fracture of left radius bone. 4. Left index finger was also injured with deep cut injury measuring 7 X 1 cm. 15.1. In his cross-examination he deposed that in his report he mentioned that death might be due to excessive bleeding. 16. P.W.12, Dr. Pradip Kumar is the Medical Expert, who conducted the Post Mortem Examination on the dead body of Rezia Khatun. In his deposition the Medical Expert deposed regarding the Post Mortem Report and the findings. The following injuries on the deceased were recorded in his Post Mortem Report by P.W.12:- 1. Multiple cut injuries on the head measuring 3 X inch, 3 X 1 inch, 3 X 1 inch, 2 X 1 inch and 2 X inch. 2. Deep cut mark on left hand measuring 2 X 1 inch. In his opinion P.W.12 deposed that the death is due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of injury sustained as described. All the injuries were Anti-Mortem in nature and caused by sharp object which is homicidal in nature. The time since death was recorded to be around 24 to 36 hours prior. In his opinion P.W.12 deposed that the death is due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of injury sustained as described. All the injuries were Anti-Mortem in nature and caused by sharp object which is homicidal in nature. The time since death was recorded to be around 24 to 36 hours prior. The Medical Expert identified the Post Mortem Report as Exhibit.6 as well as his signature. He further deposed that his report was countersigned by Joint Director, Health Service, Chirang namely, Dr. Moupia. He also identified the signature of the said Joint Director. 16.1. Defence declined to cross-examine the Medical Expert. 17. P.W.13 is the UBC/198-Babulal Basumatary, who was serving as a Police constable at Bengtol Police Out-Post under Runikhata Police Station on the date of the occurrence. He deposed that at that time the in-charge of the Police Station was S/I, Lakshman Das. On that day information was received at the O.P that one woman was murdered at the river bank of Birinchi River of the village Deolguri. Accordingly, he and other police staff led by in-charge, S/I, Lakshman Das went to the place of occurrence i.e the river bank of Birinchi River of village-Deolguri. On arriving there she saw the dead body of the woman lying there with injury sustained on the head and the left hand and blood oozing out from the injuries. He testified that Executive Magistrate also arrived at the spot in the meantime and conducted Inquest on the dead body in his presence. He identified the Inquest Report as well as his signature thereon. 17.1. The defence declined to cross-examine the P.W.13. 18. P.W.14, S/I, Lakshman Kumar Das in his deposition deposed that he was serving as the in-charge of Bengtol Police Out-Post under Runikhata Police Station. P.W.14 testified that on the day of occurrence i.e. on 11.10.2016 the accused Monirul Ahmed informed him over phone that he killed his wife, Rezia Khatun by inflicting cut injury with a khukuri at the bank of river Birinchi of Deolguri while she was taking bath. After receiving the telephonic information, P.W.14 recorded the Bengtol O.P. G.D.Entry No. 253 dated 11.10.2016 and proceeded towards the place of occurrence. When P.W.14 reached at Serfanguri Road, the accused who was standing there came near him from the gateway of one Hafej Ali of Serfanguri and surrendered himself before him in connection with the occurrence. After receiving the telephonic information, P.W.14 recorded the Bengtol O.P. G.D.Entry No. 253 dated 11.10.2016 and proceeded towards the place of occurrence. When P.W.14 reached at Serfanguri Road, the accused who was standing there came near him from the gateway of one Hafej Ali of Serfanguri and surrendered himself before him in connection with the occurrence. Thereafter, P.W.14 handed over the accused in the custody of his staff and then proceeded towards the place of occurrence, which is at the river bank of Birinchi River. After reaching the place of occurrence, P.W.14 found the dead body of Rezia Khatun lying there with number of injuries on her hand and head. P.W.14 saw the injuries one on the front side of the head, one on the back side of the head and another is seen on the left arm of the dead body of deceased, Rezia. Thereafter, he informed S.P., Chirang and O/C, Runikhata Police Station about the incident and then give requisition for sending Executive Magistrate to conduct Inquest. P.W.14 recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. In the meantime Executive Magistrate, Karmadev Brahma, Circle Officer, Sidly Revenue Circle arrived at the spot and conducted the Inquest over the dead body of the deceased, Rezia in presence of the witnesses. P.W.14 prepared the sketch-map of the place of occurrence which is exhibited as exhibit.8 and he also put his signature thereon. Thereafter, P.W.14 forwarded the dead body of the deceased woman to JSB Civil Hospital, Kajalgaon for conducting Post Mortem Examination. P.W.14 then interrogated the accused in connection with this case to which the accused admitted that after killing his wife, Rezia Khatun with khukuri he threw the said khukuri in the jungle area near the Deolguri Koborsthan. P.W.14 then seized the mobile phone of the accused by preparing seizure list in the presence of witnesses which is exhibited as exhibit.6 and he put his signature thereon. On the following day, P.W.14 being accompanied with the staff and accused-Monirul went to the place, where khukuri was thrown by the accused. The accused led them to the jungle area where he threw the khukuri and there he showed them the khukuri with its wooden cover lying inside the jungle, which is near the Deolguri Koborsthan. On the following day, P.W.14 being accompanied with the staff and accused-Monirul went to the place, where khukuri was thrown by the accused. The accused led them to the jungle area where he threw the khukuri and there he showed them the khukuri with its wooden cover lying inside the jungle, which is near the Deolguri Koborsthan. P.W.14 seized the said khukuri and its cover by preparing the seizure list vide exhibit.5 in the presence of the witnesses namely, Md. Samsul Hoque, Ajibar Ali, Hamidul Majid and Hafez Miya. All the witnesses except Hafez Miya put their signatures therein in the seizure list. Witness Hafez Miya put his thumb impression. Thereafter on the following day of the date of occurrence i.e. on 12.10.2016, the informant, Raham Ali lodged the FIR in connection with the case and accordingly it was recorded by P.W.14 as Bengtol O.P. GD.Entry No.281 dated 12.10.2016 and the FIR was forwarded by him to O/C, Runikhata Police Station. On the basis of the said FIR, the Runikhata Police Station Case No.56/2016 under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code was registered by O/C of Runikhata Police Station and P.W.14 was entrusted to investigate the same. During the course of investigation, P.W.14 recorded the statements of the informant and the scriber under Section 161 Cr. P.C. and thereafter, P.W.14 arrested the accused person in connection with this case and forwarded him to the Court. P.W.14 deposed that he produced the witnesses, namely, Firoza Khatun and Jagananda Adhikary in the Court for recording their statements under Section 164 Cr. P.C. also collected the Post Mortem Report of the deceased from JSB Civil Hospital, Kajalgaon. After completion of investigation P.W.14 having found sufficient materials against the accused for committing an offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code filed charge-sheet vide exhibit.9 against the accused under the said section of law. 18.1. In his cross-examination, P.W.14 testified that he did not record any separate disclosure statement of the accused person leading to discovery of incriminating khukuri which the accused had thrown inside the jungle after committing the offence. He denied the suggestion that he had informed the witnesses over phone to keep the khukuri at that place from where it was recovered. He testified that the seized Khukuri was not sent for FSL examination as at that time it was raining. He denied the suggestion that he had informed the witnesses over phone to keep the khukuri at that place from where it was recovered. He testified that the seized Khukuri was not sent for FSL examination as at that time it was raining. He stated that he did not examine other family members of Jagannath Adhikary as prosecution witness. He denied the suggestion that while obtaining signatures on Ext.5 and Ext.6, nothing was written therein the same were blank. He also denied the suggestion that the accused did not admit before him regarding the killing of his wife and throwing of the khukuri inside the jungle. He denied the suggestion that he did not investigate properly and hurriedly filed the charge-sheet against the accused by falsely implicated him. 19. The accused in its statements given under Section 313 of Cr. P.C to as many as 56 (fifty six) questions put by the Trial Court, the answers to which were mostly denials. No other explanation was given as to how or why Rezia Khatun, his wife was murdered on the date of occurrence on the bank of the river Birinchi while she and one Firoza Khatun were taking bath in the river at about 11.30 a.m in the morning. 20. On these evidences adduced before the trial Court, the Trial Court below upheld the charge against the accused and convicted him of commission of offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code of committing culpable homicide amounting to murder of Rezia Khatun, who was his wife and sentencing him to Rigorous Imprisonment for Life amounting to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only and in default a further term of Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) year for his offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court, however, declined to invoke the provisions of Section 357 (A) of Cr. P.C. in this case. 21. On these evidences adduced the learned Amicus Curiae submits that the conviction of the accused by the Trial Court cannot be sustained on 3 (three) counts. i) The learned Amicus Curiae submits that on the first count- the motive for killing the deceased allegedly by the accused cannot be sufficiently established. P.C. in this case. 21. On these evidences adduced the learned Amicus Curiae submits that the conviction of the accused by the Trial Court cannot be sustained on 3 (three) counts. i) The learned Amicus Curiae submits that on the first count- the motive for killing the deceased allegedly by the accused cannot be sufficiently established. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that mere filing of criminal case under Section 498 A by the deceased/informant cannot be used by the prosecution as a ground to establish the motive without any other corroborating evidences. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to establish any motive for the accused to have reasonable ground to commit the offence as alleged. The learned Amicus submits that the motive is an important component in arriving at a satisfaction towards commission of any offence, which cannot be likely brushed aside. ii) On the second count the learned Amicus Curiae submits that in her evidence before the Trial Court P.W.3 stated that there were houses situated near the bank of the river Birinchi i.e. the place of occurrence. She testified that she raised hue and cry but none of the persons who were admittedly staying in houses near the place of occurrence came out and/or saw the incident alleged to have been committed by the accused. It is unnatural for people staying nearby not to come out of their houses to enquire upon hue and cry made by P.W.2, when the time of occurrence is alleged to be between 11.00 a.m to 12 p.m in the day time. The testimony of P.W.2 is therefore not reliable. Therefore, the conviction based solely on her testimonial is not sustainable. iii) The last submission of the learned Amicus Curiae is that there is no separate disclosure statements recorded by the Investigating Officer i.e. P.W.14 as admitted in his testimony. Consequently, the recovery of the alleged murder weapon cannot be said to have been sufficiently proved. The learned Amicus Curiae further submitted by referring to the evidences adduced that some of the witnesses testified that there were no blood stains noticed on the alleged murder weapon. It was also not sent for Forensic Test. Consequently, the recovery of the alleged murder weapon cannot be said to have been sufficiently proved. The learned Amicus Curiae further submitted by referring to the evidences adduced that some of the witnesses testified that there were no blood stains noticed on the alleged murder weapon. It was also not sent for Forensic Test. Under the circumstances, mere testimony by the P.W.2, who is the relative of the deceased as well as the informant who was the student of class-IX at the time of occurrence should not be relied upon to arrive at a conviction of the accused. The evidences relied upon by the learned Trial Court cannot be said to led to a conclusion of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Amicus Curiae therefore submit that in view of lack of proper evidence, the accused should be enlarged by giving benefit of doubt. 22. Per-Contra, Mr. M. Phukan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor however, strongly disputes the contention of the learned Amicus Curiae. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the evidences adduced by the witnesses before the trial Court are sufficient to led to the guilt of the accused person and the learned Trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidences adduced and has rightly convicted the accused of the offence alleged. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the Judgment of the learned trial Court and the same therefore does not call for any interference by the Appellate Court. The learned Amicus submits that the Judgment of the Trial Court be upheld and the conviction of the accused person be sustained. 23. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the evidences available on record, it is seen that P.W.2 is the eye witness who witnessed the occurrence on the date and time of occurrence as deposed. Her cross-examination does not dislodge her testimony given in evidence in chief. The other witnesses were not present at the incident but they went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of Rezia Khatun with the injuries on her head and the left arm. Her cross-examination does not dislodge her testimony given in evidence in chief. The other witnesses were not present at the incident but they went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of Rezia Khatun with the injuries on her head and the left arm. Although there is no separate statement of discovery recorded by the police from the evidences of P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.9 besides P.W.14 supports the prosecution case that the accused led the police along with the other witnesses for discovery of the murder weapon from the Deolguri Koborsthan, where it is alleged that he had kept it concealed after commission of the crime. Although the prosecution put up the case that the accused did confessed to the crime however in the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused did not admit to the guilt. 24. Upon careful perusal of the LCR as well as after going through the detailed evidences adduced before the Trial Court it is seen that there was some acrimony which existed between the accused and the deceased because of 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code case lodged by the deceased and her father against the accused alleging torture. It is also seen from the evidence that the deceased was at the relevant point of time staying in the house of her father namely, Md. Raham Ali (P.W.1), who is the informant. It is also seen from the evidence that the deceased Rezia Khatun along with Firoza Khatun (P.W.2) had proceeded to the bank of the river Birinchi to bathe in the morning of the date of occurrence i.e. 11.10.2016. Immediately after the incident P.W.2 raised hue and cry and came to the house of P.W.3, Jagananth Adhikary, whose house was situated very close to the place of occurrence. P.W.3 in his deposition upon being informed by P.W.2 immediately came to the place of occurrence and saw injuries on the body of the Rezia Khatun and that she was floating in the water. He deposed that he saw blood oozing out of the injuries and getting mixed in the water. On seeing the state of the injuries sustained by Rezia Khatun, he immediately rushed to the house of the informant, Md. Raham Ali and informed them and returned back to the place of occurrence. He deposed that he saw blood oozing out of the injuries and getting mixed in the water. On seeing the state of the injuries sustained by Rezia Khatun, he immediately rushed to the house of the informant, Md. Raham Ali and informed them and returned back to the place of occurrence. P.W.1, his wife and some other villagers also rushed to the place and pulled out the body of Rezia Khatun. Although she was alive at the time when she was pulled out of the water on to the bank, however, immediately thereafter she expired. The evidences of P.W.2, who was the sole eye-witness, could not be shaken by the defence in their cross-examination. While the other witnesses namely, P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.9 were all independent witnesses and residence of village-Deolguri within which the offence was committed. They have all testified about the presence of the dead body of the deceased with the injuries sustained as described by P.W.2 and duly supported by the testimony of the Medical Expert. 25. The submission of the learned Amicus is that motive on the part of the accused is not established cannot be accepted in view of the settled principles of law that where eye account evidences are available, absence of motive will have no significance. In the facts of the present case, the testimony adduced by the prosecution witnesses clearly establishes the commission of the crime and the testimony of the sole eye-witness P.W.2 has not be shaken in her cross-examination. Under the circumstances, merely because of motive could not be sufficiently established as submitted by the learned Amicus cannot be a ground to interfere with the Judgment. The Apex Court in Bipin Kumar Mondal Vs State of West Bengal, (2010) 12 SCC 91 has held that where there is direct trustworthy evidence of the witnesses as to the commission of an offence the motive parts loses its significance. The Apex Court held that where the ocular testimony of a witness cannot be discarded by only reason of the absence of motive if otherwise the evidences are worthy or reliance. Relevant portion of paragraph 24 of the Judgment is extracted below:- 24. It is settled legal proposition 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. Relevant portion of paragraph 24 of the Judgment is extracted below:- 24. It is settled legal proposition 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 is direct trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to commission of an offence, the motive part loses its significance. Therefore, if the genesis of the motive of the occurrence is not proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses as to the occurrence could not be discarded only by the reason of the absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy of reliance. (Vide Hari Shanker v. State of U.P., (1996) 9 SCC 40 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 913] , Bikau Pandey v. State of Bihar, (2003) 12 SCC 616 : 2004 SCC (Cri) Supp 535] and Abu Thakir v. State of T.N., (2010) 5 SCC 91 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1258] ) 26. In the present case there is only a sole eye-witness on whose testimony the Trial Court has convicted the appellant. It has been reiterated time and again by the Apex Court that a witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness to the circumstances of the case cannot be said to be interested and therefore discarded. In the present case P.W.2 is a relative of the deceased but she was the only eye witness to the offence committed by the accused in brought day light while she and the deceased were bathing near the banks of the river, Birinchi. As such, merely because she is a related and/or she is the sole eye witness cannot be a ground for a testimony to be thrown out making it unreliable as sought to be contended on behalf of the appellant. The Trial Court correctly relied upon her evidence to arrive at the conviction of the accused. In this context the Judgment of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan Vs Kalki and another, (1981) 2 SCC 752 is relevant. Paragraph 7 of the Judgment is extracted below:- 7. As mentioned above the High Court has declined to rely on the evidence of PW 1 on two grounds: (1) she was a highly interested witness because she is the wife of the deceased , and (2) there were discrepancies in her evidence. Paragraph 7 of the Judgment is extracted below:- 7. As mentioned above the High Court has declined to rely on the evidence of PW 1 on two grounds: (1) she was a highly interested witness because she is the wife of the deceased , and (2) there were discrepancies in her evidence. With respect, in our opinion, both the grounds are invalid. For, in the circumstances of the case, she was the only and most natural witness; she was the only person present in the hut with the deceased at the time of the occurrence, and the only person who saw the occurrence. True, it is, she is the wife of the deceased; but she cannot be called an interested witness. She is related to the deceased. Related is not equivalent to interested . A witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eyewitness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be interested . In the instant case PW 1 had no interest in protecting the real culprit, and falsely implicating the respondents. 27. On the aspect of conviction being based only on sole eye-witness, in another Judgment the Apex Court in Chittar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan, (2003) 6 SCC 397 has turned down the plea made therein that conviction should not have been made on the basis of a single witness. The Apex Court has held that if the testimony is found to be reliable there is no legal impediment to convict the accused on such proof. It is the quality of evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be tested on the touch stone of credibility and reliability. Relevant portion of paragraphs 7 of the Judgment is extracted below. 7. [Para 7 corrected as per official corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./80/2003] Evidence of the person whose name did not figure in the FIR as witness does not perforce become suspect. There can be no hard-and-fast rule that the names of all witnesses, more particularly eyewitnesses should be indicated in the FIR. 7. [Para 7 corrected as per official corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./80/2003] Evidence of the person whose name did not figure in the FIR as witness does not perforce become suspect. There can be no hard-and-fast rule that the names of all witnesses, more particularly eyewitnesses should be indicated in the FIR. As was observed by this Court in Shri Bhagwan v. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 6 SCC 296 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1095] mere non-mention of the name of an eyewitness does not render the prosecution version fragile. The information was not lodged by an eyewitness. Mental condition of a person whose father has lost his life inevitably gets disturbed. Explanation offered by witnesses for non-mention of PW 3's name is plausible. Additionally, it is to be noted that in the present case the statement of PW 3 was recorded on the same day of incident, immediately after the investigation process was set into motion. Therefore, the plea that PW 3's testimony is doubtful lacks substance. The other plea was that conviction should not have been made on the basis of a single witness, PW 3's testimony. This plea is equally without essence. The legislative recognition of the fact that no particular number of witnesses can be insisted upon is amply reflected in Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the Evidence Act ). Administration of justice can be affected and hampered if number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of unknown occurrence where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If plurality of witnesses would have been the legislative intent, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available, in number of crimes the offender would have gone unpunished. It is the quality of evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be tested on the touchstone of credibility and reliability. If the testimony is found to be reliable, there is no legal impediment to convict the accused on such proof. It is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact.This position has been settled by a series of decisions. The first decision which has become locus classicus is Mohd. If the testimony is found to be reliable, there is no legal impediment to convict the accused on such proof. It is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact.This position has been settled by a series of decisions. The first decision which has become locus classicus is Mohd. Sugal Esa Mamasan Rer Alalah v. R.,1946 (AIR)PC 3 : 1946 All LJ 100] The Privy Council focused on the difference between English law where a number of statutes make conviction impermissible for certain categories of offences on the testimony of a single witness and Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The view has been echoed in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, (1957) AIR SC 614 : 1957 Cri LJ 1000] , Guli Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (1974) 3 SCC 698 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 222 : AIR 1974 SC 276 ] , Vahula Bhushan v. State of T.N., (1989) Supp1 SCC 232 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 353 : AIR 1989 SC 236 ] , Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P., (1995) SCC(Cri) 160 : AIR 1994 SC 1251 ] and Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 614 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 188] . 28. Regarding non recording of separate disclosure statements by the police, the same will not affect the case put up by the prosecution in view of the testimony of P.W.4, P.W.5. P.W.6 and P.W.9 besides P.W.14 who had accompanied the police along with the accused and who had deposed that as shown by the accused the khukuri along with its cover which was used for the commission of the offence was recovered from the Deolguri Koborsthan as the same was seized by the Police by preparing a seizure list and the said witnesses were also the seizure witnesses. As discussed above although the accused did not admit to the guilt, he did not put up any other case in his defence except the case of complete denial. There is no other explanation as to how or who would have killed his wife, the deceased, Rezia Khatun on the date of occurrence. Although not admitted in his statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C, the evidence of the witnesses as discussed above revealed that the accused had led the police to the discovery of the murder weapon from the Daoulguri Koborsthan. Although not admitted in his statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C, the evidence of the witnesses as discussed above revealed that the accused had led the police to the discovery of the murder weapon from the Daoulguri Koborsthan. True, upon perusal of the evidence available on the LCR as well as on the testimony of P.W.14 (I/O) that he did not record any separate disclosure statement of the accused person relating to recovery of the alleged murder weapon, however, the evidences of P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.9 that they accompanied the police and the accused showed the police the place in the Deolguri Koborsthan where he had hidden the murder weapon and at his instance, and as showed by him the police recovered the murder weapon from the place. The testimony of the witnesses accompanying the police during recovery of the alleged murder weapon shown by the accused himself has not been dislodged in the cross-examination. 29. In view of eye-witness account available, none-recording of Discovery Statements by the police in respect of the recovery of the murder weapon will not affect the prosecution case. 30. In their cross-examination also the testimony of the seizure witnesses (P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.9) are found not altered and therefore the recovery of the murder weapon from the Deolguri Koborsthan premises as shown by the accused will be a material consideration. 31. In this context it has been held that the two essential requirements for application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are that -1. The person giving information must be an accused of an offence and 2. That he must be in police custody. 32. The provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are based on the view that if a fact is actually discover in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and consequently that the said information can safely be allowed to be given in evidence because such information is further fortified and confirmed by the discovery of articles or the instrument of crime and leads to the believe that the information about confession made as to the articles of crime cannot be false. As discussed above in the present case the accused was in police custody and he lead the police to the place from where the murdered weapon namely khukuri along with its cover was recovered and in the presence of the witnesses P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6 and P.W.9. Therefore, the failure to record disclosure statement by the I/O will not be fatal to the prosecution case. In this context reference may be made to the Judgment of the Apex Court in Suresh Ch. Bahari Vs State of Bihar,1995 Supl1 SCC 80. Paragraph 71 and 72 is extracted below. 71. The two essential requirements for the application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are that (1) the person giving information must be an accused of any offence and (2) he must also be in police custody. In the present case it cannot be disputed that although these essential requirements existed on the date when Gurbachan Singh led PW 59 and others to the hillock where according to him he had thrown the dead body of Urshia but instead of the dead body the articles by which her body was wrapped were found. The provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and consequently the said information can safely be allowed to be given in evidence because if such an information is further fortified and confirmed by the discovery of articles or the instrument of crime and which leads to the belief that the information about the confession made as to the articles of crime cannot be false. In the present case as discussed above the confessional statement of the disclosure made by the appellant Gurbachan Singh is confirmed by the recovery of the incriminating articles as said above and, therefore, there is reason to believe that the disclosure statement was true and the evidence led in that behalf is also worthy of credence. 72. In the light of the facts stated above we are afraid the two decisions mentioned above and relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants have no application to the facts of the present case and do not advance the case of the appellants challenging the discovery and seizure of the incriminating articles discussed above. 72. In the light of the facts stated above we are afraid the two decisions mentioned above and relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants have no application to the facts of the present case and do not advance the case of the appellants challenging the discovery and seizure of the incriminating articles discussed above. In Nari Santa, (1945) AIR Patna 161 : 46 Cri LJ 613 : 219 IC 391] the accused of that case was charged for the theft and it is said that in the course of investigation the accused produced certain articles and thereafter made a confessional statement and it was in these facts and circumstances it was held that there was no disclosure statement within the meaning of Section 27 as the confessional statement was made only when the articles were already discovered having been produced by the accused. Similarly the decision rendered in Abdul Sattar, (1986) AIR SC 1438, 1985 Supp SCC 599 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 505 : ] also does not help the appellants in the present case. In the case of Abdul Sattar, (1985) SCC(Cri) 505 : 1985 Supp SCC 599 : AIR 1986 SC 1438 ] recovery of wearing apparels of the deceased is said to have been made at the instance of the accused of that case more than three weeks after the occurrence from a public place accessible to the people of the locality and, therefore, no reliance was placed on the disclosure statement and recovery of the wearing apparels of the deceased. But in the present case it was soon after the arrest of appellant Gurbachan Singh that he took the Police Officer while in custody to the place where according to him he had thrown the dead body of Urshia wrapped by the incriminating articles. Those articles were not found lying on the surface of the ground but they were found after unearthing the Khad gaddha dumping ground under the hillock. Those articles were neither visible nor accessible to the people but were hidden under the ground. They were discovered only after the place was pointed out and it was unearthed by the labourers. No fault therefore could be found with regard to the discovery and seizure of the incriminating articles . 33. Those articles were neither visible nor accessible to the people but were hidden under the ground. They were discovered only after the place was pointed out and it was unearthed by the labourers. No fault therefore could be found with regard to the discovery and seizure of the incriminating articles . 33. In view of the above discussions we are of the view that the Judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellant of the offence of 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Life as well as to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only and in default for a further term of Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) year does not call for any interference. We accordingly uphold the Judgment of the Trial Court and the sentencing of the accused/appellant. 34. The Jail Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 35. Send a copy of this Judgment to the Superintendent, District Jail, Runikhata, who will furnish a copy of the same to the accused. 36. Send down the LCR with a copy of the Judgment. 37. Before parting with the case record, we would like to put on record our appreciation of the learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. A. Dhar, Advocate for rendering his valuable assistance to the court during the hearing of the present Criminal Jail Appeal. He may be paid the remuneration as payable presently by the Assam State Legal Service Authority.