PHILIP SARENG Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order, dated 26.5.99, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat, in Sessions Case No. 50/97 convincing the accused person under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows:- On 1.12.93, a written information was given to the Officer-incharge of Golaghat Police Station alleging to the effect that one Mohan Gogoi, elder brother of the informant, was missing from 13th November, 1993, and on 1.12.93 at about 8 a.m., when one Rajib Ahmed went to the paddy field, he found there Mohan Gogoi lying dead. The members of the family of Mohan Gogoi was accordingly informed. They went to the place of occurrence, found the dead body and identified the same as dead body of Mohan Gogoi. In the first information report, it was stated that deceased Mohan Gogoi's family suspected accused Philip Sareng as the killer, because, the accused had a long standing dispute with the deceased. On receipt of this information, Police registered a case, came to the spot, held inquest over the said deadbody. On completion of investigation, Police submitted charge-sheet against two accused, namely, Philip Sareng and Luis Karketa under Section 302/34 IPC.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge framed accordingly charge against the two accused under Section 302/34 IPC. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Learned Sessions Judge found no material against the accused Luis and acquitted him but cm finding accused Sareng guilty of the charge, convicted and sentenced him as hereinabove mentioned. PW-1 (Tularam Gogoi) has deposed that he went to the place of accused philip and, on reaching there, he found blood on the passage. One Laben Induwa, whose house is situated near the place of occurrence, told him that accused Philip Sareng and accused Luise had assaulted Mohan Gogoi. But this Laben Induwa was not examined as witness. So, the statement of PW-1 with regard to the assault on Mohan Gogoi by the two accused persons aforementioned is nothing but hearsay. So, the evidence of PW-1 is of no value.