SIKANDER KARMAKAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.02.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge No. 2 (FTC), Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 64(CH)/2007. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 376 and 302 IPC and accordingly sentenced him to suffer impris-onment for life and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for his conviction under Section 302 IPC and suffer R.I. for 7 years and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default suffer R.I. for 1 (one) month for his conviction under Section 376 IPC.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the said conviction and sentence the appellant has come up with the appeal.

(3.) ON receipt of the said FIR, police registered a case under Section 376/302 IPC and launched investigation into the matter. Accordingly police visited the place of occurrence found the dead body, lying in a drain, prepared inquest report (Ext. 3), prepared sketch map of the place of occurrence, forwarded the dead body for post mortem examination, examined the witnesses, recorded their statements and arrested the appellant. At the close of the investigation police submitted charge-sheet under Section 376/302 IPC against the appellant. The offence, being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned SDJM, Sapakhowa, Sadia committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 376/302 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused person, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove their case, prosecution examined, as many as, 18 witnesses, including the medical officer (PW-7), who performed the autopsy, the Circle Officer (PW-16), who visited the place of occurrence for conducting the inquest of the dead body and the investigating police officers (PW-17 and PW-18). At the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused person was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. He denied the allegations, brought against him and declined to adduce defence evidence. His plea was that he was falsely implicated with the alleged offence in this case. Considering the evidence on record the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above.