LALITA RABHA NATH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.5.2007 rendered by the Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Darrang, Mangaldoi Sessions Case No. 42 (DMFT)/2005 convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC sentencing her to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default R.I. for another 6 (six) months. The appellant is serving the Sentence and she has preferred this appeal from jail through the jail authority. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that a written FIR was received from one Deven Nath at Mazbat PS wherein is alleged that in the afternoon of 13.6.2004 at about 6.15 PM his sister-in-law Lalita Rabha Nath caused death to her husband Chandrakanta Nath by dao blow and on the basis of the said FIR a crime being Mazbat PS Case No. 54/2004 was registered under Section 302 IPC and the Officer-In-Charge himself took the charge of investigation of the case. The I.O., visited the place of occurrence, conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased, sent the dead body to Mangaldoi Civil Hospital for holding post-mortem examination, seized the dao allegedly used by the accused in committing the crime and also one 'sadar' from the possession of the accused. During investigation, the I.O. also recorded the statements of witnesses and after completion of investigation submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant. The learned SDJM Mangaldoi committed the case to the court of Sessions, Darrang, Mangaldoi for trial. Accordingly, the Sessions Case No. 108(DM)/2005 was registered, which was made over to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Darrang and re-numbered as Sessions Case No. 42 (DMFT)/2005 for trial. The appellant was furnished with the relevant documents and on being heard and upon consideration of charges, a charge u/s 302 IPC was framed against her. The said charge being read over and explained, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(2.) We have heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned Amicus Curiae for the convict appellant and Mr. K. M. Mazumdar, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, for the State respondent.

(3.) In order to bring home the aforesaid charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses including the I.O. and the Medical Officer. The appellant being examined under Section 313 CrPC, declined to examine any witness in her defence.