PRODIP DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal, under Section 374 of CrPC, has been registered on a petition filed by the convict-appellant, Prodip Das, on 17.08.2007, from District Jail, Golaghat, forwarded through the Superintendent of the said jail, challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dated, 9.8.2007, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat, in Sessions Case No. 128/2005, under Section 302 of IPC. On a charge framed against the accused, learned Sessions Judge found him guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for life and to pay, a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default of payment, to undergo SI for three months. Heard learned counsel, Mr. S. Borgohain for the appellant, and learned P.P., Assam, Mr. Z. Kamar, for the State respondent.

(2.) Briefly stated, fact of the case is that the accused appellant, Prodip Das, is the eldest son of the deceased victim, Ranjan Das, through his first wife. The accused Prodip Das with his mother, his wife and children used to reside in a separate hut in a separate mess. The deceased Ranjan Das, with his second wife, the informant Sukriti Das (PW1), and his children, through second wife, namely, Pratap Das (PW4), Sumita Das (PW7) and others, used to reside in a separate hut and in a separate mess. Both the houses of the accused-appellant and the deceased were in the same premises. Relationship between the accused and his father was bitter since long and there used to be quarrel between the two families every now and then.

(3.) Learned counsel, Mr. Borgohain, in course of his argument, has submitted that PW10 prepared inquest report over the dead body on 10.06.2005, at about 10.30 am, wherein he has clearly mentioned that he - found cut injury in the neck and about seven cut blows were there. The neck was not severed and there was no other injury on other parts of the body; whereas, in the postmortem report, the autopsy surgeon (PW9) found only one cut injury in the neck. This discrepancy between the inquest report and the postmortem report creates a serious doubt regarding the authenticity of the prosecution case and, hence, the accused is entitled to get benefit of doubt.