LAWS(GAU)-2012-11-23

CHANIKA KARLONG Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

Decided On November 20, 2012
Chanika Karlong Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order, dated 08.08.2007, passed, in Sessions Case No. 60 (M)/2007, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, (FTC), Tinsukia, convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described thus: On 30.10.2006, at about 1.30 pm, accused Chanika Karlong assaulted his brother, Soma Hassa, by means of an axe at their residence on several parts of his body and, in consequence thereof, Soma Hassa died. A written Ejahar was lodged by Konwar Hassa, son of the said deceased, at Margherita Police Station, on the day of the occurrence itself, i.e., on 30.10.2006, at about 4.10 pm. accusing his uncle, Chanika Karlong, of having killed the informant's father, Soma Hassa, by giving him blows with an axe. Based on the said Ejahar and treating the same as the First Information Report (in short, 'FIR'), Margherita Police Station Case No. 166/2006, under Section 302 IPC, was registered against the accused. During investigation, police visited the place of occurrence, held inquest over the said dead body, took the accused into custody and produced him before a Judicial Magistrate and, on his production, the accused made a judicial confession. On completion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet, under Section 302 IPC, against the accused.

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

(3.) In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 7 (seven) witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.PC and, in his examination aforementioned, he denied that he had committed the offence, which was alleged to have been committed by him, the case of defence being that of denial. No evidence was adduced by the defence.