HUSSAIN AHMED MAZUMDER Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals aforesaid, arising out of the same judgment, are taken up together for hearing and disposal. The appellants above named were put on trial, for commission of offence under Section 394, 302 & 34 IPC, in the Court of Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, in Sessions Case No. 38 of 2005. On conclusion of the trial, both of them were convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more. The prosecution case in brief is that on 29.10.2000, around 7 AM in the morning, the deceased Abdul Mazid Mazumdar left home carrying with him an amount of Rs. 60,000/- to hand over to the accused Anowar Hussain and Jalaluddin in exchange of a job to his eldest son. Around 12 noon, his beheaded body was found at the embankment of Nalubak. On receiving the information, the first-informant Mazaraf Ali Mazumdar, the brother of the deceased, lodged an ejahar with the officer-in-charge of Lala police station, who, in rum, registered a case and launched an investigation. The investigating police officer, on completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the four accused persons under Section 394/302/34 IPC.

(2.) During the course of trial, the learned Sessions Judge, on a perusal of the materials on record and after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, framed a formal charge under Sections 394, 302 and 34 IPC against the accused-appellants, namely Hussain Ahmed Mazumdar, Anowar Hussain Barbhuiya, and Fakar Uddin Barbhuiya. When the charge was read over and explained to the accused-appellants, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, However, it may be mentioned here that after the framing of charge, one of the accused, namely Jalal Uddin Barbhuiyan had absconded and hence the case against him was stayed, declaring him as an absconder on proof of proclamation-and-attachment order. The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses in order to establish the charge brought against the accused. On conclusion of the recording of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused persons under Section 313 CrPC, was recorded. The specific plea of the accused persons was of total denial. The accused persons did not come forward to adduce their evidence in defence.

(3.) On conclusion of hearing, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the ace used-appellants as aforesaid, which triggered this appeal.