SASHANKA HAJONG Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by accused -appellant, Sashanka Hajong, aggrieved by the judgment and order, dated 19.12.2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, in Session Case No. 109(M)/2005, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused -appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 2000/ - and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for another one year. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described thus: On 05.03.2005, at about 10 a.m., the accused, after having his meals with the members of his family, was standing outside and smoking; but, suddenly, without any discernible reasons, he went inside his house and hacked his wife, Kun -tola Hajong, to death by means of a dao. On hearing the commotion inside his house, when the sons and daughters of the accused -appellant entered into the house, they found their mother lying dead and the accused told them that he was the one, who had killed their mother. The accused, then, went to the house of Dipu Raj Hajong (PW 2), a co -villager, and told him that he had killed his wife. Advising the accused to wait for some time, PW 2 came to the house of the accused and, on entering into the house, he found wife of the accused lying dead in a pool of blood, whereupon PW 2 went straight to Jagun Police Outpost and lodged there a written information. Based on the said written information and treating the same as First Information Report (FIR), Lekhapani Police Station Case No. 16/2005, under Section 302, IPC, was registered against the accused, Police visited the place of occurrence, held inquest over the dead body, got post mortem examination performed on the said dead body and, on completion of investigation, laid charge -sheet against the accused -appellant under Section 302, IPC.

(2.) WHEN a charge, under Section 302, IPC, was framed at the trial against the accused, he pleaded not guilty thereto.

(3.) HOWEVER , having found the accused guilty of the offence charged with, the learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentence against him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence passed against him, the accused has preferred this appeal.