STATE OF ASSAM Vs. PAKHI MIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, against acquittal, has been preferred by the State against the judgment and order, dated 5.6.2003, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Karimganj, in Sessions Case No. 13/2002. We have heard Mr. K. Mazumdar, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State appellant. None appears for the respondents. An FIR lodged by Shri Sailesh Ch. Nath, on 29.8.2000 with the Officer in Charge, Karimganj Police Stations has given rise to Sessions Case No. 13/2002 aforesaid. The prosecution case, as revealed at the trial, is that, on 26.8.2000 at about 8.30 P. M. , Smt. Sabita Nath (herein after called the deceased), a niece of the first informant aforesaid was returning home, from the house of Shri Gauranga Mahanta, a priest of the village. She was way laid and assaulted by Mr. Pakhi (servant of Fakrul), on her head with a lathi. Despite attempts made by the villagers, no settlement could be reached between the parties. However, the deceased was found missing from the morning of 29.8.2000. Subsequently, the deadbody of the deceased was found lying inside the "murta ban" (cane bush), on the bank of the pond of Mr. Fakrul. On being informed, police visited the place of occurrence and conducted inquest in respect of the dead body. On receipt of the said FIR, police, initially, registered a case under sections 325/34 IPC and at the close of investigation, police submitted charge sheet, under sections 376/302/201/34 IPC, against the respondents namely Mr. Fakrul Islam, Mr. Faizul Islam, Mr. Tuta Miya and Mr. Pakhi Mia alias Makbul Ali. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the said accused persons, under sections 302, 201 read with section 34 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty.

(2.) In order to prove their case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses including the Medical Officer (PW 6) who performed the autopsy of the dead body, the Investigating Police Officers (PW 8 and PW 9) and the Executive Magistrate (PW 7), who accompanied the police to the place of occurrence at the time of seizure of a rope vide Exhibit No. 4. Four more witnesses were examined as Court witness i. e. C. W. 1, CW 2, CW 3 and CW 4. At the close of the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused persons were examined under section 313 Cr. P. C. They denied the allegations, brought against them. The defence examined one defence witness.

(3.) Considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge came to the findings that the prosecution failed to prove the charges, brought against the accused persons, beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly the accused persons were acquitted and set at liberty. Aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, the State, as appellant, has come up with this appeal, seeking reversal of the impugned order of acquittal.