Page No.# 1/22 GAHC010196422022 2026:GAU-AS:13663 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.A./276/2022 PALLAB SAIKIA @ PAMPU SAIKIA S/O HAREN SAIKIA, R/O LOTAIMARI, P.S.- RUPAHIHAT, DIST.- NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY P.P., ASSAM. Advocate for the appellant : Mr. J. Borah, Adv. Advocate for the respondent : Ms. B. Bhuyan, Addl. P.P. assisted by Ms. R. Saloi, Adv. :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA Date on which judgment is reserved : 09.09.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 16.09.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : No. operative part of the judgment ? Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced? Page No.# 2/22 JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) (M. Zothankhuma, J) 1. Heard Mr. J. Borah, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Sr. Counsel and Addl. P.P, Assam, assisted by Ms. R. Saloi, learned counsel for the State. 2. This is an appeal against the impugned Judgment dated 27/05/2022 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Nagaon in Case No. Sessions (T-1) 26/2012, by which the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302/326/341 IPC. 3. The appellant vide sentence order dated 31/05/2022, has thereafter been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, with a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for 4 months under Section 302 IPC. The appellant has also been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for 1 month under Section 326 IPC. He has also been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days under Section 341 IPC. All the sentences are to run concurrently. 4. Section 302 IPC provides for punishment for murder, while Section 326 IPC provides for punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. Section 341 IPC provides for punishment for wrongful restraint. 5. The facts of the case, in brief, is that the Prosecution Witness No.-1, Page No.# 3/22 (PW-1), who was the VDP Secretary of Lataimari Village, informed the Rupahihat Police Station through phone on 09/10/2009 at around 9:15 p.m, that an unknown person had accosted a male and female teacher on Na-ali Road and assaulted them with a sharp weapon, causing injuries to both of them. He thus requested that the police should come to the place of occurrence. Accordingly, on the basis of the information received through phone on 09/10/2009 at around 9.15 p.m., GD Entry No.204 was made. The information received in the police station was thereafter conveyed to the SP/Addl. SP(HQ), Nagaon over phone. The O/C of the police station, along with other police personnel, thereafter left for the place of occurrence. 6. On 10/10/2009, PW-4 submitted an FIR to the O/C of the Rupahihat Police Station, stating that on 09/10/2009 at around 8:00 to 8:30 pm, when her husband was returning from Samaguri where he had gone for some work with his colleague (PW-8), some miscreants had stabbed her husband Sri Dibyahas Saikia with a sharp weapon near Na-ali Pathar Borpul, which led to his death. The miscreants had also assaulted PW-8 on both of her hands with a sharp weapon. However, PW-8 took advantage of the darkness and had escaped. As the news spread throughout the village, PW-4 rushed to the place of occurrence and saw her husband’s body. She later came to know that the killer was a fellow villager, namely Sri Pallab Saikia (Pampu), who had surrendered at the police station with the weapon in the early morning of 10/10/2009 and had confessed that he had killed the deceased. The police thereafter registered Rupahihat P.S. Case No.322/2009 under Sections 341/326/302 IPC. PW-18 was entrusted with investigation of the case after GD Entry No.204 dated 09/10/2009 had been made. After completing his investigation, PW-18 submitted the charge-sheet Page No.# 4/22 against the appellant, on finding a prima facie case established under Sections 302/326/341 IPC. 7. The learned Trial Court thereafter framed charges against the appellant under Sections 302, 326 and 341 IPC, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned Trial Court thereafter examined 18 Prosecution Witnesses and the appellant as Defence Witness No.1 (DW-1). One Inspector Nipu Kalita was also examined as Court Witness No.1 (CW-1). After examination of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein the appellant denied that he had committed the crime or that he had surrendered before the police, the learned Trial Court came to a finding that the Prosecution had been able to prove the guilt of the appellant under Sections 302, 326 and 341 IPC. Accordingly, he was convicted under Sections 302/326/341 IPC and sentenced accordingly. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the only eyewitness to the alleged crime is PW-8, who is an injured witness. He submits that the evidence of PWs-5, 9, 14 & 16 is based upon the information allegedly given to them by PW-8, the appellant and PW-4. However, the same has been denied by PW-18 (I.O.), whose testimony is to the effect that PWs-5, 9, 14 & 16 did not say those incriminating statements to him. He submits that PW-5 had stated in her testimony that PW-8 had asked her to give water and had stated that the appellant had caused injury to her hands. However, in the cross-examination of PW-18 (IO), PW-18 stated that PW-5 did not tell him that PW-8 asked PW-5 to give her water and/or that the appellant had assaulted and injured her hands with a dagger. Page No.# 5/22 9. The counsel for the appellant also submits that PW-9 in her testimony had stated that PW-8 (injured eye-witness) had told her that the appellant had cut her hands with a dao. However, PW-18 had stated in his cross-examination that PW-9 did not tell him that PW-8 had told PW-9 that the appellant had assaulted and cut PW-8 10. The appellant’s counsel also submits that PW-14, in her evidence, had stated that the appellant had told her that he had cut the deceased and PW-8. However, PW-18 in his cross-examination stated that PW-14 did not tell him that the appellant had told PW-14, that the appellant had cut a woman and a man. 11. The counsel for the appellant submits that PW-16 in her evidence, had stated that her mother (PW-4) had told her that the appellant had murdered the deceased and PW-8 had been injured. PW-18, however, in his cross-examination had stated that PW-16 did not tell him (PW-18) that PW-4 had told PW-16 that her father was murdered and PW-8 was injured. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the above omissions made by the above four witnesses, i.e, PWs-5, 9, 14 & 16 in their statements made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C, has however found place in their testimonies. As such, when there are contradictions/discrepancies between the statements made under Section 161 Cr.P.C, vis-à-vis their testimonies, that part of the contradictions/discrepancies cannot be admissible as evidence. The omissions, being major contradictions, indirectly disprove the testimony of PW-8 that she had seen the assault made by the appellant on the deceased with a sharp weapon. He submits that in terms of Section 6 of the Evidence Act, the Page No.# 6/22 facts connected with the fact in issue which form part of the same transaction, are relevant. As such, when it has been proved that some parts of the testimonies of PWs-5, 9, 14 & 16 had not seen light of day, prior to their testimony in Court, as has been proved by PW-18 in his cross-examination, the said extracted statements could not be used as evidence against the appellant. As the testimonies of PWs-5, 9, 14 & 16 were doubtful and lacked credibility, the testimony of PW-8 was also doubtful. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that though the case of the Prosecution is that the appellant had surrendered with a weapon in the Police Station with blood soaked clothes, the clothes and the weapon of the appellant were never sent for forensic examination, though the weapon had been seized by the police. He further submits that PW-8 (injured eye-witness) had in the meantime married the appellant. He also submits that there is no motive established by the prosecution, for the appellant to have killed the deceased or injured PW-8. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as PW-8 cannot be said to be a credible witness and as the second FIR submitted on 10/10/2009 had been used as an FIR, instead of the earlier GD Entry No.204 dated 09/10/2009, the trial of the appellant had been vitiated and accordingly, the appellant should be acquitted of the charges framed against him. 15. In support of his contention that the FIR dated 10.10.2009 could not be the basis for beginning the investigation in view of G.D Entry No. 204 dated 09.10.2009, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Page No.# 7/22 Court in the case of Yanob Sheikh Alias Gagu vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2013) 6 SCC 428. With regard to his submission that some omissions or additions made by a Prosecution witness may have a vital bearing upon the truth of the story given by the Prosecution, he relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tahsildar Singh and another vs. State of UP, reported in AIR 1959 SC 1012. 16. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that PW-5, PW-9, PW-14 and PW-16 cannot be said to be contemporaneous witnesses of PW-8, who is an injured eyewitness. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that PW-8 being a witness to the occurrence of the crime and as she had been injured in the incident, it is unlikely that PW-8 would have spared the actual assailant who had injured her. Further, the evidence of an injured witness has greater evidentiary value than a normal witness and unless compelling reasons exist, the evidence of PW-8 cannot be discarded lightly. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that unless there is some defect in the investigation which vitiates the entire Prosecution case, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the appellant, only because the FIR dated 10.10.2009 had been submitted after the GD Entry No.204 had been made on the basis of a telephonic information. In support of her submission, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2022) 20 SCC 114. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that in view of there being an injured eyewitness whose testimony had not been shaken during cross-examination, there was no infirmity in the conviction of the appellant by the learned Trial Court. Page No.# 8/22 17. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 18. As can be seen from the evidence adduced by the Prosecution witnesses, PW-8 is the injured eyewitness who was returning home with the deceased from Samaguri in a small vehicle. PW-8 states in her deposition that before reaching her home, the appellant who she identified in the dock, stopped their car. When the deceased was about to get out from the driver’s seat, the appellant hit the head of the deceased with a dao. On being hit on the head, the victim fell down. The appellant then rained blows with a dao on both the hands of PW-8, due to which she sustained wounds in both hands. PW-8 then stated that she somehow went about 2 furlongs and entered her house. While entering her house, she fell down. Later, her family members took her to Nagaon Civil Hospital for treatment. From there, she was sent to Guwahati Medical College & Hospital (GMCH) and subsequently treated by a private doctor in Tezpur. PW-8 further stated that she underwent treatment for one and a half years and that her hand had still not completely healed. 19. In her cross-examination, PW-8 denied the suggestion that she had made a false accusation against the appellant stopping their vehicle and raining blows on the deceased and PW-8. She also denied the suggestion that she did not sustain any injuries or did not undergo treatment anywhere. 20. The evidence of PW-1, who is the person who gave the information to the Police on 09.10.2009, is to the effect that he was a Village Defence Party (VDP) Secretary and that he had called the Police Station. He had gone to the place of occurrence and saw the deceased lying face down. The Police came Page No.# 9/22 and thereafter took the dead body. PW-1 stated that he heard that the deceased was robbed by dacoits and that PW-8 had told him that after being robbed, the victim had been tied up. In his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that PW-9, who was the mother of PW-8 had stated that the deceased had been hacked by the dacoits and that her daughter had also been hacked. 21. PW-2, who is the cousin brother of the deceased, in his evidence stated that he was informed by his brother Utpal that somebody had attacked the deceased. He also stated that he had heard that dacoits had attacked the deceased. 22. The evidence of PW-3, is to the effect that he knew the appellant and PW-4 who submitted the FIR on 10.10.2009 and the deceased. He heard that an incident of dacoity had taken place in the house of PW-8. He stated in his cross examination that on enquiry being made, PW-8 had stated that dacoits had cut her. 23. The evidence of PW-4, who is the wife of the deceased, is to the effect that while waiting for her husband to come home at around 8 p.m on 09.10.2009, she heard a sound and saw the elder brother of the deceased riding a bicycle and calling for a boy named Tutu, who lived in front of the house, shouting that a very serious incident had taken place. On asking Tutu, as to what had happened, Tutu told her that somebody had hacked PW-8 and that her husband had been tied up at Na-ali. PW-4 then informed her mother-in-law and went to the place of occurrence. She then went to the house of PW-8, where she saw PW-8 lying unconscious. In the place of occurrence, she saw her Page No.# 10/22 husband lying in a pool of blood. In her cross-examination, PW-4 states that she had heard from villagers that the appellant had killed her husband and accordingly she lodged an FIR against him. 24. The evidence of PW-5 is to the effect that she knew PW-4 and the appellant. On the day of occurrence at about 8.30 p.m, PW-8 returned alone to her house with injuries on both of her hands. On PW-8 entering the house, PW- 8 fell down and sought for a glass of water. After having water, PW-8 stated that the appellant had cut her hands. Due to a hue and cry, people gathered. Thereafter, a vehicle was called which took her to the Nagaon Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, she was referred to the GMCH. 25. The evidence of PW-6, is to the effect that he knew PW-4 and the appellant. PW-6 stated that PW-8 is his sister and on the date of occurrence at about 8:30 p.m, he heard his sister (PW-8) shouting. Hearing PW-8, he came out and found his sister had sustained serious injury on both of her hands. PW- 8 then told PW-6 that the appellant had caused the injuries to her hands. Thereafter, PW-8 was taken to civil hospital for treatment. PW-6 then stated that he did not know how the deceased had died, due to which PW-8 was declared hostile. 26. The cross-examination of PW-6 by the Prosecution and by the defence is as follows: “XXX (Cross-examination by the Prosecution) Page No.# 11/22 It is not a fact that Bandhabi came to the house and told me that accused Pampu caused death of Biprahash Saikia and also assaulted her causing hand injuries with intent to kill her. It is not a fact that I have hidden the real story and made false deposition to save the accused. XXX (Cross- examination by the defence) Finding Bandahbi returned to the house with injury I came out from the house to call some nearby people. At the relevant point of time she was semi unconscious. I could not say who were gathered Bandhabi Saikia went I went out to call upon the villagers. I have heard from the attendence that accused Pampu@ Pallav Hazarika caused injuryto Biprohash Saikia. I have not make visit to the place of occurrence where the dead body of deceased was recovered. I have made statement to the I/o that I have seen the injury on the person of Bandhabi Salkia and thereafter Bandhabi was shifted to civil hospital Nagaon. Except the above I did not make any statement before the I/O. It is not a fact that accused did not cause cut injury to Bandhabi Saikia.” 27. The evidence of PW-7, who is the Doctor who examined PW-8 on 09.10.2010, is to the effect that the nature of injury on PW-8 was as follows:- “Nature of Injury: 1. one incised deep cut injury size 6"X4"X1" on right arm exigency to elbow Invariant vertebrae membranes. 2. Incised deep cut injury size 5"X5"X1" left arm exigency to elbow. Whether Simple or Grievous: grievous injury. By what kind of weapon inflicted: Sharp cutting heavy weapons. Remarks: the patient was referred to GMCH.” 28. The evidence of PW-9, who is the mother of PW-8, is to the effect that she saw her daughter come running to her house at around 8 p.m and saw Page No.# 12/22 injury on both of her hands and there was blood on her whole body. PW-8 cried ‘morilu’ and her elder daughter PW-5 gave water to PW-8. PW-9 stated that PW- 8 told her that the appellant had cut her hands with a dao. Further, when they had stopped their car, the appellant had struck the throat of the deceased with a dao. Thereafter, an ambulance was called and PW-8 was sent to Nagaon Civil Hospital and she was referred to Guwahati Medical College. PW-9 stated that she did not know the number of days PW-8 took for treatment. She also stated that PW-8 was not cured even now and that her fingers were deformed and PW- 8 somehow managed to take food with one hand. 29. The evidence of PW-10, is to the effect that he had heard that the appellant had assaulted and injured the deceased. He also stated that he came to learn that when the deceased was returning from Samaguri along with PW-8, the appellant had assaulted and injured both of them. 30. The evidence of PW-11 is hearsay evidence. 31. The evidence of PW-12 is also hearsay evidence., inasmuch as, he has stated that he had heard from the village people that the appellant had caused the death of the deceased. 32. The evidence of PW-13, is to the effect that on the day of occurrence, he along with the driver of the 108 vehicle found the injured girl with her hands cut and blood flowing. Thereafter they gave her first aid and admitted the victim to B.P Civil Hospital. Page No.# 13/22 33. The evidence of PW-14, is to the effect that he was a Constable in the Nagaon Police Station and was on duty at Rupahi Police Station at around 12 a.m from 4 p.m. He saw the appellant, who told him that he had cut the deceased and PW-8. One mit dao, one kopi dao and one torchlight was thereafter kept on the ground by the appellant. PW-14 accordingly informed the ASI and the In-Charge of the Police Station. 34. The evidence of PW-15, who is the Doctor, who performed Post-Mortem Examination on the deceased on 09.10.2009, is to the effect that there was a deep laceration and injury on the left side of the neck involving all the vessels. The trachea was also injured. There was lacerated injury of chest and of the right ear. There was also lacerated injury of upper muscle region up to vertical. The nature of the multiple injuries on the body was mandible. All the injuries were anti-mortem in nature. In his opinion, the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of the multiple injuries sustained by the deceased. 35. The evidence of PW-16, who is the daughter of PW-4 and the deceased, is to the effect that she knew the appellant. She stated that her mother told her that the appellant had stopped the car of her father and when her father had come out from the car, the appellant had struck him with a dao, due to which he fell down. The appellant then assaulted PW-8 on her hands due to which she fled from her house. 36. The evidence of PW-17, who is a retired Sub-Inspector of Police, is to the effect that on 10.10.2009, while he was on duty at Rupaihat Police Station Page No.# 14/22 and was in his quarter, PW-14 informed him that a person in an injured state having a dagger, a dao and a torchlight came to the Police Station. He then went to the Police Station and saw the appellant sitting on a bench in the veranda, with cut injuries by a sharp weapon on the throat of the appellant. Thereafter, a dagger, a dao and a torchlight was seized from the appellant which was exhibited in Court. In his cross-examination, PW-17 stated that he saw blood on the dagger. 37. The evidence of PW-18 is to the effect that on 09.10.2009, while he was at Rupahihat Police Station as an Attached Officer, PW-1 had informed him over phone that a male teacher and a lady teacher had been restrained on the road and assaulted grievously with a sharp weapon. After GD Entry No.204 dated 09.10.2009 was made, he was entrusted to investigate the matter. After investigating the matter, he submitted a charge- sheet against the appellant. 38. PW-18 stated in his cross-examination that PW-8 had been sent to the hospital by the local people and though he had gone to the house of PW-8, he could not examine her, as he did not find her. 39. The evidence of the appellant as DW-1, is to the effect that he had not murdered the deceased or caused any injury to PW-8. DW-1 stated that his brother had seen the deceased with cut injuries and had died. His brother was arrested by the Police on suspicion. As DW-1 was ill, he had not come out from the house. When he came to know of the arrest of his brother, he along with his father went to the Rupahihat Police Station on the next day at about 6 to 6.30 am. As the policeman on duty saw cut injury on his neck which had been Page No.# 15/22 bandaged, the police had detained him, though he had told the police that he had received the cut injury accidentally while repairing a bamboo fence the previous afternoon. The Police then arrested him. DW-1 also stated that he had married PW-8 on 11.07.2017, i.e. 6 months after PW-8 had testified in Court against him. 40. In his cross-examination, DW-1 stated that PW-8 was a good-looking woman and that he was seriously in love with her in 2009 when the incident took place. He also stated that ordinarily, a person in love would not like if the girl he loved moved around with another man. However, DW-1 stated that he was busy and had no time for such things. DW-1 also testified that he was not happy when PW-8 went for official work outside the school with the deceased and he had questioned PW-8 about the same. 41. The evidence of Court Witness (CW) No.1, is to the effect that he was the O.C of the Rupaihat Police Station and the custodian of the General Diary of the Police Station. As per Volume X, which is the General Diary of the Police Station, it was recorded in the context of GD Entry No. 204 dated 09.10.2009. That at about 4.30 a.m of 10.20.2009, the appellant had surrendered at the Police Station with the weapon of assault, one knife and one kopi dao. It was also noted in the General Diary that the appellant was soaked in blood and his neck was injured. It was also recorded that the appellant had surrendered. 42. In his cross-examination, CW-1 stated that, as per GD Entry No.212 dated 09.10.2009, in the context of GD Entry No. 204, one Paltu Saikia, son of Haren Saikia had been picked up and brought to the Police Station. However, Page No.# 16/22 the subsequent GD entry did not disclose as to what happened to Paltu Saikia. CW-1 denied the suggestion that the appellant had not surrendered at the Police Station or that he had not come to the Police Station with a kopi dao and a knife. He also stated that it was not recorded as to whether the clothes of the appellant were seized or not. It was also not mentioned whether any forensic test was conducted. 43. The examination of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C shows that he has denied killing the deceased or injuring PW-8. He also denied surrendering before the Police. He also stated that the injury on his neck was caused by the sharp edge of a bamboo, while working in his house. 44. The evidence of PW-8, who is an injured eye-witness to the incident, shows that her evidence has not been shaken or controverted in any manner at the time of cross-examination. Though the appellant had taken a stand that the prosecution has not been able to establish any motive for the appellant to have killed the deceased or injured PW-8, who he alleges to have subsequently married, motive is not significant in a case where there is an eye-witness to the crime. 45. In the case of Nandu Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh), reported in (2022) 19 SCC 301, the Supreme Court has held that while absence of motive is not singlehandedly fatal to a prosecution's case, a complete absence of motive changes the overall evaluation and definitely weighs in favour of the accused, when the entire case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence. The present case is not based on circumstantial Page No.# 17/22 evidence, but on the basis of an injured eye-witness. As held in various decisions of the Supreme Court, the testimony of an injured eye-witness carries high evidentiary value and cannot be discarded lightly. 46. In the present case, the testimony of PW-8 has not been controverted or shaken and as such, can be the basis for conviction of the appellant. 47. In the case of State of U.P. vs. Naresh, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 324, the Supreme Court has observed that the evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage. His presence in the place of occurrence at the time of the incident cannot be doubted. It also held that the evidence of an injured witness should be relied upon, as he would not like his actual assailant to go unpunished, merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence, unless there are grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies. 48. In the present case, there is no doubt of the fact that PW-8 was at the scene of occurrence and at the time of the incident, as both her hands were injured, due to which, to this day has not completely healed. This is clear from the evidence of PW-9, who is the mother of PW-8, who testified that the fingers of PW-8 were deformed and PW-8 somehow manages to take food with one hand. 49. With regard to the attempt by the appellant’s counsel to discredit PW Nos. 5, 9, 14 and 16, by alleging that parts of their testimonies before the learned Trial Court had not been told by them to the Investigating Officer (PW- Page No.# 18/22 18), we find that the said stand taken by the appellant is wrong, inasmuch as, the statements made by PW Nos. 5, 9, 14 and 16 under Section 161 Cr.PC contains the statements, which the appellant’s counsel has enumerated in the earlier paragraphs, alleging that they had not been stated to PW-18. The evidence of PW-5, PW-9, PW-14 and PW-16 is not contradicted when compared to their statements made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. As such, we find that the credibility of PW Nos. 5, 9, 14 and 16 as witnesses is not hit by Section 162 Cr.PC and/or Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. 50. Going back to the issue of whether there was any motive for the appellant to have attacked the deceased and PW-8, we find that the evidence of the appellant as DW-1, shows that he was in love with PW-8. The evidence of DW-1 also shows that he was not happy with PW-8 going with the deceased for official work outside the school. The evidence of DW-1 also shows that he had questioned PW-8 about the same. The above evidence of DW-1 gives rise to an inference that the appellant was jealous of the deceased and also to the fact that he was unhappy with PW-8, which could be a reason for the appellant attacking the deceased and PW-8. In any event, motive loses its significance in a case where there is direct ocular evidence. It assumes great significance only in a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence. 51. In the present case, though there are some minor discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, there is nothing to discredit the evidence of PW-8, who is an injured eye-witness. 52. In the case of Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel (supra), the Supreme Page No.# 19/22 Court has held that sufficiency or insufficiency of motive does not have a direct bearing on the actual evidence against the accused, particularly when the prosecution relies on direct evidence of an injured eye-witness. Further, minor discrepancies cannot be said to cause prejudice to the appellant, unless the discrepancy goes to the root of the matter. 53. With regard to the issue of GD Entry No.204 dated 19/10/2009, having been registered on the basis of a phone call made to the police, prior to the FIR dated 10/10/2009, having been submitted by the informant, we find that even though the GD Entry No. 204 could have been considered to be the FIR and the subsequent written FIR dated 10/10/2009 considered to be a statement made under Section 161 Cr.PC, the telephonic call was a mere telephonic information, inviting the police to the place of occurrence. A first information report normally should give the basic essentials in relation to the commission of a cognizable offence, upon which the Investigating Officer can immediately start the investigation in accordance with the provisions of Section 154/165 Cr.PC. It is not possible to accept the contention that the FIR subsequently registered was a 2nd FIR with regard to the same occurrence, with similar details and was hit by Section 162 Cr.PC. 54. In the present case, though the telephonic call made on 09/10/2009, led to GD Entry No.204, the same does not mean that the GD Entry 204 is to be treated as the first FIR. The first telephonic information gave no details, except the fact that two teachers were assaulted with a sharp weapon and the police should go to the place of occurrence. The telephonic information given by the V.D.P Secretary resulted in the body being taken by the Police at night and a Page No.# 20/22 inquest and Post-Mortem examination being done. The sketch-map of the place of occurrence was also made. Nothing else was done on the basis of the telephonic information. When the information received by the police without any details, as regards the name of the culprits or the nature of injuries, the same need not be treated as an FIR. As such, it cannot be said to be hit by Section 162 Cr.PC. 55. In the case In the case of Superintendent of Police, CBI and others, versus Tapan Kumar Singh, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 175, the Supreme Court held that a GD entry may be treated as an FIR in an appropriate case, where it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. It also stated that an FIR is not an encyclopedia, which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. The above clearly goes to show that it is not mandatory that all telephonic calls need to be treated as an FIR and when the police case has been registered on the basis of the written FIR, it does not cause any prejudice to the appellant. As such, it cannot be said that the trial has been vitiated only because the telephonic call has not been treated as an FIR. 56. In the case of Yanob Sheikh @ Gagu (supra), the Supreme Court has held that a second FIR about the same occurrence between the same persons and with similarity of scope of investigation, cannot be registered and by applying the test of similarity, it may then be hit by the proviso to Section 161 Cr.P.C. In the present case, the contents of the FIR and the telephonic conversation are not similar. Further, all the investigation, besides the inquest, Post-Mortem examination and making of sketch map, had been done on the basis of the written FIR dated 10/10/2009, which resulted in the registration of Page No.# 21/22 Rupahihat P.S. Case No.322/2009. As such, we do not find any infirmity in the Police not treating the telephonic information to be the first FIR. 57. Further, we do not find any prejudice has been caused to the appellant, just because the telephonic information given to the police on 09/10/2009 had been registered to GD Entry No.204, while the written FIR had been submitted on 10/10/2009. There is nothing to show as to how there has been infringement of Section 162 Cr.PC and as to what prejudice has been caused to the appellant by the same. As such, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment, only because of GD Entry No.204 was not considered to be the FIR. We also find that though the weapons seized from the appellant, who had surrendered before the Police Station, had not been sent for forensic examination, there is nothing to doubt the fact that the appellant had killed the deceased and injured PW-8. The minor discrepancy between the testimonies of the witnesses, whose evidences were hearsay evidence, does not in any manner vitiate the trial. 58. With regard to the submission made by the appellant’s counsel that some omissions and additions made by the Prosecution Witness Nos. 5, 9, 14 and 16 affected the credibility of the injured eyewitness PW-8, by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Tahsildar Singh (supra), we find that the appellant has not been able to make out a case of there being any omissions or additions made by the Prosecution witnesses and as such, the decision of the Supreme Court in Tahsildar Singh (supra), with regard to be above, is not attracted to the facts of the case. Page No.# 22/22 59. In view of the reasons stated above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned Judgment dated 27/05/2022 or the sentence order dated 31/05/2022, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Nagaon in Case No. Sessions (T-1) 26/2012. 60. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 61. Send back the TCR. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant Kuntal Datta Digitally signed by Kuntal Datta Date: 2026.09.16 10:52:35 +05'30'