Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010019982026 2026:GAU-AS:13974 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRL.A(J)/20/2026 SRI CHITRA PANGING TANUWAR PANGING @RIKA@ AMERICA @BORDEKA, RESIDENTOF VILLAGE- DIMOW CHARIALI,P.S- SILAPATHAR, DISTRICTDHEMAJI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM, REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SMT. RINA PANGING CHETRY WIFE OF LATE BHAKTA BAHADUR CHETRY A RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DIMOW CHARIALI P.S. SILAPATHAR DISTRICT DHEMAJI ASSAM Advocate for the appellant : Ms. L. Devi. …Legal Aid Counsel. Advocates for the respondent : Ms. B. Bhuyan, Sr. Govt. Advocate and Addl. P.P., Assam. Ms. S. Saloi, …. Advocate. :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NCHUMBEMO MOZHUI Date of hearing & judgment : 22.09.2026 Page No.# 2/9 JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) (M. Zothankhuma, J) 1. Heard Ms. L. Devi, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Advocate and Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Ms. R. Saloi learned counsel for the State. 2. This is an appeal against the impugned judgment dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji, in Sessions Case No. 10/2023, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 and Section 448 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 2 months under Section 302 IPC. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 3 months under Section 448 IPC. 3. The Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant submits that though there are two eyewitnesses who allegedly saw the appellant killing the deceased with a brick and an iron rod used in a tube-well, their testimonies are not reliable, inasmuch as, there are discrepancies in the time and place when the incident occurred, besides the difference in their testimonies regarding the use of weapons, when compared with their statements made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 4. The learned Legal Aid Counsel further submits in terms of the FIR submitted by Prosecution Witness (PW) No.1 and the evidence of PW-1, the incident occurred around 7 p.m, while the evidence of the eyewitness PW-12 is to the effect that the incident occurred around 7 to 8 p.m. On the other hand, the statement made by PW-1 under Section 164 Cr.P.C was to the effect that the incident occurred around 6.30 pm. There being discrepancies in the timing as to when the incident occurred, the testimony of the eyewitnesses PW-1 and PW-12 could not be said to be wholly reliable, for convicting the appellant. The learned Legal Aid Counsel also submits that even though there were neighbours living in the vicinity of the house of the deceased, none of the neighbours had turned up when the incident had occurred, which left a question mark/doubt as to whether the appellant had actually assaulted the deceased. She also submits that PW-4, who is the sister of the informant (PW-1), also did not come to the place of occurrence. She accordingly submits that the appellant should be acquitted from the charge under Section 302 and 448 IPC, by giving him the benefit of doubt. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there is no infirmity in the testimony of the eyewitnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-12, vis-à-vis their statements made under Section Page No.# 3/9 164 Cr.P.C. She also submits that when there is a discrepancy with regard to the time of assault which is only about an hour, the discrepancies could not be a ground to disbelieve the testimonies of the eyewitnesses. In this regard, she has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Pundappa Yankappa Pujari vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2014) 12 SCC 372. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submits that when the two eyewitnesses have witnessed the assault made by the appellant on the deceased, which was corroborated by their Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements and the Doctor's evidence, the burden of proving the reason for the death of the deceased had been discharged by the two eyewitnesses, in terms of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. She accordingly submits that the impugned judgment should not be interfered with. 6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 7. The brief facts of the case is that an FIR dated 08.08.2022 was submitted by the informant (PW- 1), who is the wife of the deceased to the Officer-in-Charge, Silapathar Police Station. The FIR stated that at around 8 p.m on 07.08.2022, while PW-1 and her family members were sitting in their house, the appellant, who was the first cousin of the informant, entered their house and killed her husband, by repeatedly hitting the head and other parts of her husband's body with a tube-well plunger and a piece of brick. The appellant also tried to kill PW-1 and PW-12 (minor girl). However, they managed to save their lives. The appellant also took their savings of Rs.30,000/-. Though the informant shouted for help, none turned up. Thereafter, she went to the Dimow Police Post and informed the police. After that, the informant went to the village and informed the villagers about the incident. Pursuant to the FIR, Shilapathar Police Station Case No. 142/2022 under Section 448/302/379 IPC was registered. After investigation was completed, the Investigating Officer (PW-13) filed a charge-sheet, on finding a prima facie case established against the appellant under Section 302/379/448 IPC. 8. The learned Trial Court thereafter framed three charges against the appellant under Sections 302/379/448 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 9. The learned Trial Court thereafter examined 13 Prosecution Witnesses and after examining the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C, it came to a finding that the prosecution had been able to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt under Section 302 IPC and Section 448 IPC. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted under Section 302/448 IPC and was acquitted of the charge framed under Section 379 IPC. 10. There are two eyewitnesses who saw the appellant killing the deceased, i.e, PW-1 and PW-12. While PW-1 is the wife of the deceased, PW-12 is the minor daughter of the deceased. Page No.# 4/9 11. PW-1 adduced evidence to the effect that at about 7 p.m, while she was sitting inside her house and her deceased husband was sitting outside the house, the appellant came to their house. When she went out of the house, she saw the appellant hitting her husband with an iron rod used in a tube- well, causing grievous injuries to him, due to which he died on the spot. Thereafter, the appellant hit her on the head with a ‘Kalah’, causing injuries to her also, due to which she fled to save herself. She then informed the Police, who came and took the body of her dead husband for Post-Mortem examination. The day after the incident, she filed an FIR against the appellant in the Police Station, wherein her statement was recorded by the Police. Thereafter, she was sent for medical examination and also to the Court, for getting her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In her cross-examination, PW-1 stated that she did not know how to read and write and that she had put her thumb impression on the FIR. She also stated that it was dark at the time of the incident and she was inside the house with her little girl, while her husband was outside. On hearing a hue and cry, she came out of the house and saw the assault on her husband. She also stated in her evidence that though there were several houses near her house, the neighbours did not come to her house at the time of occurrence. She also stated that there were bricks in the back of her house and denied the suggestion that her husband had fallen down on the bricks after consuming excessive alcohol. 12. The evidence of PW-2 is to the effect that PW-1 had come to their village one day at about 7 p.m and informed him that her husband had been killed by the appellant. 13. The evidence of PW-3 is to the effect that PW-1 had informed him one day at about 8 pm that the appellant had killed the deceased. 14. The evidence of PW-4, who is the elder sister of PW-1, is to the effect that she did not know anything about the incident. 15. The evidence of PW-5 is to the effect that PW-1 was his stepmother. He also knew the appellant. On 07.08.2022 at about 7 p.m, PW-2 had informed him over phone that a fight had taken place in the house of the deceased. On going to his father's house, he saw the dead body of his father with injuries. He also saw a piece of brick and an iron rod near the dead body. While going to his father's house, he met PW-1 on the road, who told him, while crying, that the appellant had killed his father, by striking his head with a brick and an iron rod. Page No.# 5/9 16. The evidence of PW-6 is to the effect that PW-1 was his stepmother. On 07.08.2022 at about 6.45 p.m, PW-1 came into his house and told him that the appellant had assaulted his father with an iron rod used in a tube-well. On going to his father's house, he saw the injuries on his father's head and an iron rod near the dead body. 17. The evidence of PW-7 is to the effect that one day at about 7 p.m, PW-1 had come to his house and told him that the appellant had assaulted her husband. On going to the house of the deceased, he saw the dead body of the deceased and a brick and an iron rod used in the tube-well was lying near the dead body. 18. The evidence of PW-8 is to the effect that he was informed over phone that a fight had taken place in the house of the deceased. On going to the place of occurrence, he saw the dead body of the deceased with bleeding injuries on his head. 19. The evidence of PW-9, who is the Doctor who conducted Post-Mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, is that he found the following injuries on the head of the deceased: “Cranium and Spinal Canal :- 1. Scalp, Skull, vertebrae – Scalp-Bruise (3x6 cm) over forehead. Skull-Depressed fracture of frontal bone. Vertebrae-Healthy. 2. Membrane – Healthy. 3. Brain and spinal cord – Brain-Blood clot in frontal lobe. Spinal cord – not dissected.” In his opinion, the cause of death of the deceased was due to intra-cerebral haemorrhage following blunt impact to the head. All injuries were antemortem in nature. 20. PW-10 and PW-11 stated that they did not know the informant or the accused person and they did not know anything about the occurrence of the crime. 21. The evidence of PW-12, who is the daughter of the deceased. She was around 9 years at the time of the crime and 11 years at the time of adducing her evidence before the learned Trial Court. The Trial Court records show that preliminary questions had been put to her by the learned Trial Court and as the learned Trial Court found that PW-12 could give rational answers to the questions, proceeded to record her statement without administering oath. The evidence of PW-12 is to the effect that she saw the appellant coming into their house and pelting stones at her father, besides hitting him with an iron rod Page No.# 6/9 used in a tube-well, causing grievous injuries to him. Her father died on the spot and her mother lodged an FIR against the appellant in the Police Station. The examination-in-chief and cross-examination of PW-12 is reproduced below, as follows: “Examination-In-Chief The informant is my mother. I know the accused person. About two years back, one day, at about 7/8 pm, I saw accused Chitra Panging coming to our house and pelting stones at my father, Bhakta Bahadur Chetry and hitting him with an iron rod used in tubewell causing grievous injuries to him and my father died on the spot and thereafter, my mother, Rina Panging Chetry lodged an ejahar against the accused in the police station. Police had forwarded me to the Court for recording my statement u/s 164 Cr.PC. Ext.P3/PW12 is my statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.PC and Ext.P3(1)/PW12, Ext.P3(2)/PW12 and Ext.P3(3)/PW12 are my signatures. Cross-Examination I have come to the Court with my elder brother. At the time of occurrence, I and my mother were inside the house. On hearing hue and cry, I and my mother came out of the house at the time of occurrence. The accused is my maternal uncle (mama). We did not use to reside in the house of my father, Bhakta Bahadur Chetry but used to reside in the land of my maternal uncle (mama), i.e., the land of the accused person. It is not a fact that I have falsely deposed that I saw accused Chitra Panging coming to our house and pelting stones at my father, Bhakta Bahadur Chetry and hitting him with an iron rod used in tubewell causing grievous injuries to him and my father died on the spot. It is not a fact that I did not see the occurrence.” 22. The evidence of PW-13, the Investigating Officer is to the effect that on 07.08.2022, while he was posted at Dimow Police Post as In-Charge, PW-1 and her daughter came to the Police Post and told him that the appellant had killed her husband. After making the G.D Entry, PW-13 visited the place of occurrence. He saw the dead body of the deceased and found one broken blood-stained brick, one blood-stained lever of the tube-well and one blood-stained piece of cement bag, which he seized. PW- 13 then prepared the sketch-map and examined the witnesses. On the next day, inquest was done by the Circle Officer and he sent the dead body for Post-Mortem examination. He also arrested the appellant. After collecting the Post-Mortem report and the FSL report and finding sufficient materials against the appellant, he submitted a charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302/379/448 IPC. In his cross-examination, PW-13 stated that though he had sent samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, DNA could not be obtained from the samples and therefore comparison of the same could not be done. He also stated that he came to know that the deceased used to consume excessive alcohol and ganja and used to create commotion everyday. Page No.# 7/9 23. The examination of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C shows that he has made a blanket denial of the evidence adduced against him, without making an attempt to explain the evidence adduced against him. Nothing has been stated by the appellant to the effect that he was not at the place of occurrence, at the time of the incident. In the case of Raj Kumar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,, reported in (2014) 5 SCC 353, the Supreme Court held that the accused has a duty to furnish an explanation in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C regarding any incriminating material that has been produced against him. If the accused chooses to maintain silence or remains in complete denial when his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C is being recorded, in such an event, the Court would be entitled to draw an inference, including such adverse inference against the accused as may be permissible in accordance with law. In the present case also, when there are eyewitnesses to the appellant assaulting the deceased, we are of the view that the blanket denial made by the appellant during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C gives rise to an inference that the appellant is the only person who had murdered the deceased. 24. As can be seen from the evidence of the eyewitnesses PW- 1 and PW-12, they had seen the appellant hitting the deceased with a brick and iron rod. Though PW 12 had stated that stones had been thrown by the appellant at her father, it can be understood that what had been thrown was the broken brick and not stones. On perusing the statements made by the PW-1 & PW-12 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and on comparing the same with the testimonies, we find that the statements made by the two eye witnesses corroborates their testimonies made before the learned Trial Court. 25. The statements of PW-1 & PW-12 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are reproduced herein below as follows :- “PW-1 My name and other details are as mentioned above. Around 6:30 p.m. on 07/08/2022, our neighbour Sri Chitra Panging entered our house and assaulted my husband and me without any reason. He assaulted my husband with block-brick and tube-well washer rod. As a result, my husband died on the spot. He run away. That's all I have to say. PW-12 Around 7:00 p.m. on 07/08/2022, my mother and I were watching cinema in mobile phone. At that time, Chitra Panging entered our house and assaulted my parents. He assaulted my father with a brick and tube-well washer. As a result, my father died on the spot.” Page No.# 8/9 26. With regard to the stand taken by the appellant that there are discrepancies with the exact time of the incident, we find that while the PW-1 has given different times in the FIR, testimony and statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C, the difference with the time of the incident is within an half hour range. We are of the view that the discrepancy as to the exact time when the incident occurred, which varies by ½ hour, can be ignored, as it is very possible for a person to make small mistakes in the timings of when an incident occurs. In any event, the same does not affect the core of the issue, i.e. the assault made by the appellant on the deceased, which was seen by PW-1 and PW-12. Further, in the case of Pundappa Yankappa Pujari (Supra), the Supreme Court has held that minor discrepancies cannot be a ground to disbelieve the statements of a witness, if the difference with regard to when the incident occurred is about an hour and a half. As such, the minor discrepancy in this case, with regard to the difference in the time of the incident in a ½ hour range, cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. 27. We also find that the Seizure List which has been exhibited as Ext.P.5, shows that the following articles had been seized : 1. A piece of bloodstained broken brick. 2. A bloodstained tube-well lever. 3. A piece of bloodstained cement bag. The above corroborates the evidence of the eyewitnesses that a brick and a tube-well lever/iron rod had been used by the appellant, while assaulting the deceased. The evidence of the Doctor also shows that there was a bruise in the skull over the forehead and a depressed fracture on the frontal bone of the scalp. 28. In the case of Esakkimuthu vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, reported in 2025 0 INSC 880, the Supreme Court held that the evidence of close relatives of the deceased can be rejected, if there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in their testimonies. However, in the present case, we find the evidence of PW-1 and PW-12 to be truthful and without any material contradictions or inconsistencies. 29. In the case of Balku Oram vs. State of Odisha, reported in 2026 INSC 852, the Supreme Court has held that the Courts can act on the testimony of a single witness, provided he is wholly reliable. Direct ocular evidence, if found to be natural, cogent and trustworthy, prevails over all other kinds of evidence. In the present case, we do not find any reason to doubt the truthfulness of the evidence of Page No.# 9/9 PW-1 and PW-12. There is no suggestion put to the minor witness (PW-12) that she had been tutored to make a false case against the appellant. Similarly, there is nothing to show that there is any enmity between the family of the deceased and the appellant, for PW-1 to have made a false case against the appellant. In fact, the appellant and the PW-1 appear to be related. 30. On considering the above facts, we do not find any ground to take a view, that it was some other person, other than the appellant who had killed the deceased. The finding of blood, not only on the seized brick, but also on the tube-well lever/iron rod and the bloodstained cement bag shows the ferocity of the assault made on a vital part of the body of the deceased by the appellant. There being nothing to show that there is any material contradictions or discrepancies in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-12, which goes to the root of the matter, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. 31. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 32. Send back the TCR. 33. In appreciation of the assistance provided by learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant her fee should be paid by the High Court Legal Services Committee. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant