AKLU BARAIK Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is an indigent. He was undefended in the trial court as well as in this Court. He was provided with State -defence in the trial court as also in this court. The appellant is a tea -garden labourer who has been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and sen -tenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 16 -2 -1980 at about 9 p.m. PW 2 Hari Prasad Dosad, driver of the Deahal Tea Estate, reported in the police station that in the Borguri Line of Hatimara Tea Estate one man was lying dead - this much and no further. The police made a General Diary Entry (Ext.6) and investigation ensued. After preli -minary investigation, the AGI of Police, Shri Nirmal Bora lodged an ejahar on 17 -2 -1980 to the effect that on 16 -2 -1980 at about 6 p.m. in Borguri Line of Hatimara Tea Estate accused Aklu Baraik killed his father by assaulting him with a lathi. The accused was arrested in the course of investigation, a charge -sheet was submitted and the accused was ultimately tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh. The prosecution examined as many as 7 (seven) witnesses in support of its case. There is a single witness, PW 1, Dr. Binod Kumar Saikla, on whose testimony the whole prosecution case revolved. This witness has stated that the accused made some statements to him which were incriminating in nature. His state -ment is that the accused came running on the date of occurrence around 6 O'clock in search of an ambulance. On this, PW 1 enquired of him as to the reason why he was asking for an ambulance to which the accused replied he had assaulted his father on the head with a lathi and his father was lying in the courtyard and he had to be carried to hospital. PW 1 then asked him to contact the driver of the ambulance, PW 2 Hari Prasad Dosad and take the ambulance. On return from the place of occurrence, PW 2 reported to PW 1 that the man had already died. Thereupon the doctor PW 1 directed PW 2 to go to the police station and report the matter and he complied with the same.

(3.) NOW the sole question is whether the accused ever made any incriminat -ing statement to PW 1. The accused has been examined and he has categorically denied allegation. Next, we find that the appellant who allegedly made the state -ment as deposed to by P.W.1 did not make any confessional statement before any person or authority. Ordinarily, the labourers coming from tea -gardens make quick judicial confession. In the instant case, we do not find any judicial confes -sion to support the statement of P.W.1. So, let us see whether there is any corroboration of the testimony of P.W.1 implicating the accused with the crime. At the outset we must say that in mo -ments of distress a person like the appellant may wrongly make some utterances without understanding the implication of it and the person to whom those statements are made may deduce any meaning which he may wish to give. In the instant case, this is what has happened with the appellant. The appel -lant is a tea -garden labourer and they have their own dialect in which they converse. Added to this, they have their own typical tongue and P.W.1, to whom the alleged statement was made, does not belong to that category. It was quite possible for P.W.1 not to keep track with the exact statement of the accused appellant, which might have been made by the tea -garden labourer on 16 -2 -1980. Now let us see whether in reality or in fact P.W.1 heard the accused telling him that he had beaten up his father with a lathi. To test it, let us scan the evidence of the witnesses.