RAMLAL LOHAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is an indigent for which he has received "free legal aid" during his trial as well as in the appeal before us. The appellant is a peasant. He has been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 in default to undergo R.I. for one month more.

(2.) THE prosecution story in short runs thus :

(3.) ON 26 -1 -75 Bipin Bhumiz went out fishing, never to return. On the following morning he was found dead in a field with four punctured injuries. The first information report was lodged on 27 -1 -75 at 6 -30 p.m. The form of the F.I.R. does not show that it was received at any place other than the police station. However, there is a note below the F.I.R. that the ejahar was received at the place of occurrence. The prosecution case is that the accused, for reasons unknown and unexplained, went to P.W. 5 Dhonu Murari in the evening of the date of occurrence and voluntarily made a statement that he had killed "an old man". It is alleged, the accused made another "extra -judicial confession" before the police officer at the police out -post on the 27th morning, where the accused while surrendering stated that he had killed a man with a dao which he had with him. It is alleged by the prosecution that a case was registered on the basis of the General Diary being No. 420 dated 27 -1 -75 on the strength of the extra -judicial confession made by the accused before the police officer. Interestingly, the prosecution has conveniently omitted to produce the most important record, the General Diary entry, which could have supported the prosecution version about the alleged statement of the accused. The failure of the prosecution to produce "the General Diary entry" has not been explained. It is further alleged that P.Ws. 1 and 2, Om Prakash Agarwalla and Radheshyam Dutta respectively, followed the accused to the police out -post and overheard the alleged extra -judicial confession. The accused was arrested, the dao seized, the dead body recovered and on completion of investigation a charge -sheet was submitted against the accused under Section 302, I.P.C. He stood his trial before the Court of Session where the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. There is no eyewitness to the occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty on the basis of the following materials : (1) The accused made an extra -judicial confession to P.W. 5 Dhonu; (2) He surrendered to the police with the weapon of the offence, and, confessed before the police officer, and, (3) Led the police to the place of occurrence in consequence of which the dead body of the victim was recovered. These are the circumstances or the pillars on which the superstructure of the prosecution story is founded.