Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010156862022 2026:GAU-AS:10116-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.A./208/2022 UJJAL KONWAR S/O LATE INDRESWAR KONWAR, R/O LAIPULI MORANKARI GAON, P.O.- KADAMONI VIA SRIPURIA, P.S.- BORDUBI, DIST.- TINSUKIA, PIN- 786145, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE LEARNED P.P., ASSAM. 2:INFORMANT PROSECUTRIX X REP. BY THE HUSBAND OF THE DECEASED PERSON. SRI PRANAB CHANGMAI S/O SRI KAMALESWAR CHANGMAI R/O I.O.C. COLONY TINSUKIA P.O. AND P.S.- TINSUKIA DIST.- TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN- 786125 Page No.# 2/9 Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. B N GOGOI, MR. A AHMED,MR. B HALDAR,MS S. BASAK,MS M BORAH,MR. P GOHAIN,MS. M SARMAH,MS D BORGOHAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 21.07.2026 (Mr. R. Mazumdar, J.) Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned APP for the State of Assam. 2. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Amended up to date) against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.06.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia in Sessions Case No.59 (T) of 2015 in G.R. Case No.127 of 2013 arising out of Tinsukia P.S. Case No.52/2013 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The investigation in the present case had been initiated on the basis of a FIR lodged on 28.01.2013 by one Pranab Changmai who informed that at around 6.30 pm on 28.01.2013, when he was not at home, his neighbour had informed him that some miscreant had killed his wife inside their house. Upon arrival at his house, he saw the dead body of his wife lying on the bed, injured and smeared with blood. The informant further stated that he learnt that the accused (appellant herein) had hacked his wife to death with a sharp dao and Page No.# 3/9 had run away. The wife of the accused/appellant and another lady had confessed before the informant that the incident had been committed by the accused/appellant. 4. Investigation was thereafter carried out, during which, according to the prosecution, a Khamti dao about 1 feet 5 inch in length had been recovered at the instance of the accused/appellant and seized in accordance with law. The statements of the two witnesses who were named in the FIR had also been recorded by the Magistrate under the provisions of Section 164 of the CrPC on 29.01.2013. 5. Having completed the investigation, charge sheet No. 89/2014 was submitted on 31.03.2014. The SDJM, Sadar, Tinsukia, noticed that the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused/appellant under Section 302, IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, and committed the case for Trial on 25.02.2015. 6. Charge with single head under Section 302 IPC was framed on 13.07.2015. Evidence was thereafter led by the prosecution and the accused/appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code on 02.04.2022. Judgment was pronounced on 22.06.2022, convicting the accused under Section 302 of the IPC and after hearing the accused, the sentence was handed out on 24.06.2022. 7. In the charge sheet, the prosecution had proposed 22 witnesses, and 11 prosecution witnesses deposed during the Trial. As per the judgment, the following is the list of prosecution witnesses and the nature of the evidence Page No.# 4/9 adduced by them: RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE PW1 Dr. Rajdeep Guha M.O. – Official PW2 Sri Binod Gogoi Indirect PW3 Smti Mina Beldar Indirect PW4 Sri Chandan Basfor Indirect PW5 Sri Arjun Mishra Seizure witness PW6 Sri Janardan Chanda Seizure witness PW7 Smti Sikhamoni Khanikar Direct PW8 Sri Narayan Kuri Judicial Magistrate – Official PW9 Sri Sanatan Buragohain Indirect PW10 Sri Bijoy Duwarah I.O. – Official PW11 Sri Amarjyoti Bailung Another I.O. – Official 8. The Medical Officer who deposed as PW1 had described the nature of the Page No.# 5/9 10 injuries on the deceased victim, out of which 5 of the injuries were on the scalp and skull. He deposed that these 5 injuries individually were sufficient to cause death of a person in normal course. PW2, PW3 and PW4 did not depose anything about the incident. PW5 and PW6, who were the seizure witnesses, were declared hostile by the prosecution. 9. PW7 claimed to know the accused and the deceased. It is in her evidence that she had visited the deceased on the fateful day, where she learnt that the deceased had sustained injuries in her leg in a motor accident. When she reached the house of the deceased, she was accompanied by her daughter. On her arrival she met the wife of the accused, namely Smti. Palakshi Konwar, who had gone to the kitchen to prepare tea. According to her, the accused arrived and asked about Palakshi. He went to the kitchen and from outside, PW7 could hear the accused and his wife quarrelling. The accused then came out of the kitchen and started to accuse the deceased of inciting his wife on certain matters. PW7 left the house of the deceased and went a nearby house. Within moments, wife of the accused also came to the house where the PW7 had gone. The wife of the accused then went to the house of the deceased after sometime and came running out, shouting and asking PW7 to call an ambulance because someone had injured someone inside the house. PW7 left the place of occurrence leaving behind her scooty. This witness was also cross examined by the defence. 10. PW8 had recorded the statement of the wife of the accused and the PW7 under Section 164 CrPC, as directed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. He deposed about the statement made by the wife of the accused. According to the deposition recorded by him, the wife of the accused was already at the place of Page No.# 6/9 occurrence and the PW7 later arrived there. While she had gone to make tea, her husband had arrived and she had noticed her husband holding a dao which was covered by a red colour cloth. PW8 stated that the witness, whose statement he had recorded, had stated before him that the accused had gone to the deceased and had an argument with her. The witness had heard cries from the room of the deceased and she immediately left the house, without switching of the gas cylinder. When she went back to switch of the gas cylinder, PW7 asked her to bring the keys of her scooty. She went to the house and saw the deceased lying on the ground in a pool of blood, with a big cut on her neck. The statements recorded and the signatures of the witnesses were indentified and exhibited by PW8. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and the learned Trial Court has also relied upon the last seen theory to convict the accused. The judgment is based on the deposition of PW7 and PW8. According to the learned counsel, the learned Trial Court had committed an error when it considered the evidence of the PW7 and PW8 to be direct evidence. The learned counsel has argued that the evidence relied upon by the learned Trial Court were not enough to hold that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the impugned judgment requires interference. He has also submitted that, in the absence of the evidence of the wife of the accused, whose statement was also recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, the case of the prosecution could not have been accepted by the learned Trial Court. 12. The learned APP, resisting the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the evidence of the PW7 and PW8 had remained Page No.# 7/9 unshaken during cross examination and the alleged weapon of crime had also been recovered at the instance of the accused during investigation, while he was in custody. She has accordingly prayed that the instant appeal be dismissed. 13. On going through the records of Trial, it is seen that the wife of the accused namely, Smti. Palakshi Konwar was a vital witness who could have explained the chain of events which led to the death of the wife of the informant. Records reveal that though summonses were issued to the aforesaid witness, her evidence had not been recorded. It is on record that on 03.05.2018, the learned Trial Court had issued bailable warrant of arrest to secure the presence of the said witness. However, the fate of the warrant of arrest is not reflected in the records. 14. In our considered opinion, the non recording of the evidence of a witness who had, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, elaborated the sequence of events, leading to the death of the victim, has left a lacuna in the Trail of the accused and has also denied the accused an effective opportunity of rebutting the story projected by the prosecution, and to establish his innocence. We have also noticed that PW7, on whose evidence the learned Trial Court has placed reliance, had extensively referred to the presence of Smti. Palakshi Konwar and had indicated that the said witness had been the first person to see the dead body of the victim. PW8 had also stated that the said witness, when her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, had described the demeanour of the accused, when he had arrived at the house of the victim. Page No.# 8/9 15. Therefore, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the learned Trial Court, to arrange for recording of the evidence of Smti. Palakshi Konwar, who had been arrayed as prosecution witness No.11 in the charge sheet No.89/2014 dated 31.03.2014, and thereafter follow the due procedure in law, to bring the Trial to its logical conclusion. We have also noticed that there is force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the entire circumstances indicating his guilt have not been put to the accused while examining him under the provisions of Section 313 of the CrPC. The learned Trial Court would also keep the aforesaid observation in perspective while reconducting the Trial, from the stage of recording the evidence, as directed herein above. 16. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 22.06.2022 convicting the accused and the impugned order dated 24.06.2022, sentencing the accused are interfered with and set aside. The learned Trial Court shall proceed with the Trial from the stage indicated above. 17. The records received from the learned Trial Court be returned forthwith along with a copy of this order. 18. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had been allowed the enjoy the privilege of bail during the period of Trial and that he had not misused the same and that he has already undergone a period of more than 4 years, while carrying out the sentence imposed upon him by the learned Trial Court. 19. In view of the above, it is provided that in the event the appellant prays for the grant of bail during the period of the continued Trial, the learned Trial Page No.# 9/9 Court shall decide the same on its own merits expeditiously. 20. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant