Failure of Accused to Explain Circumstances of "Last Seen" Assault Permits Conviction Based on Sole Reliable Eyewitness

The deceased, Arup Kalita, went missing on the night of 19.05.2010 after having dinner at PW-12’s house

PW-11, a tenant of the accused’s father, witnessed the appellant assaulting the deceased on the head with a wooden batten at approximately 11:45 p.m.

When PW-11 attempted to intervene, the appellant pushed him away, labeling it a "domestic problem"

On 21.05.2010, the deceased's body was recovered from a pond behind the appellant's house with the legs tied with a rope

The medical report (PW-1) cited an incised injury to the occipital scalp and skull fracture as the cause of death

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC while acquitting four co-accused family members due to a lack of specific evidence against them

The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of delayed naming in the FIR and lack of intent

1. Whether the testimony of a sole eyewitness (PW-11) is reliable for conviction despite the non-mention of the appellant’s name in the initial GD Entry and FIR filed by PW-2

2. Whether the "last seen together" theory and Section 106 of the Evidence Act apply to the appellant

3. Whether the offense should be downgraded from Section 302 (Murder) to Section 304 Part-II (Culpable Homicide) of the IPC due to the use of a wooden batten and a single blow

Section 302 IPC (Punishment for murder) and Section 300 IPC (Definition of murder)

Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding facts especially within the knowledge of the accused

Precedents cited include Govindaraju @ Govinda v. State on the reliability of a sole witness; Alil Mollah v. State of West Bengal regarding conviction based on a single reliable witness; Rajendra Alias Rajesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Satpal v. State of Haryana on the "last seen theory"; and Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. regarding the determination of "intention to kill" based on the nature of the weapon and body part targeted

The Court found PW-11 to be a highly reliable witness whose presence was natural as a tenant on the premises; his testimony remained unshaken during cross-examination and was corroborated by his Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement

The Court dismissed the defense's argument regarding the omission of the appellant's name in the FIR, noting that the informant (PW-2) likely lacked precise details initially, and PW-11 had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant

Applying the "last seen theory," the Court noted that since the appellant was the last person seen assaulting the deceased shortly before death (as established by the presence of undigested food in the stomach), the burden shifted to him under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain how they parted company, which he failed to do

Regarding intent, the Court held that hitting a vital organ (head) with a sharp-edged wooden batten, followed by tying the victim's legs and throwing him into a pond, demonstrated a clear intention to ensure death, satisfying Section 300 IPC

The Court refused to modify the conviction to Section 304 IPC, citing the cruel manner of disposing of the body as clear evidence of "intention and knowledge" to kill, dismissed the appeal, and upheld the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC to life imprisonment