BIMAL INDWAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is from jail against the judgment and order passed by learned Sessions Judge, U. A. D., Jorhat on 2 -3 -81 in Sessions Case No. 190 (S -G)/79.

(2.) THE brief narration of the facts leading to the present appeal are that on 27 -3 -78 deceased Mangri Tate, wife of P. W. 2 Samru Tate went to sell some articles in some distant villages. She was accompanied by the appellant. When the deceased did not return in the same evening of 27 -3 -78, P. W. 2 the husband of the deceased made search of his wife but ultimately when the search did not produce any result, he lodged a missing report in the police station on 30 -3 -78 stating the fact that his wife went out of his house accompanied by a boy named Bimal (the present appellant) to sell some articles in some distant villages but had not returned by then. On 31 -3 -78 the dead body of the deceased was found on the sand of Dhansiri river buried under it. Her dead body was exhumed, inquest was held. Meanwhile a first information report was lodged with the Police wherein the name of the present appellant figures. On receipt of the enquiry report the police, after investigation, chargesheeted the appellant. II may be mentioned that during investigation till 7th April, 1978 the appellant was absconding and his whereabouts were not known. Ultimately the appellant was arrested on 8th April, 1978. During the course of investigation autopsy was held on the dead body by P. W. 1, Dr. Priti Bhusan Das who found multiple blisters/bruises all over the dead body. In the opinion of the Doctor which has gone unrebutted the deceased died of asphyxia by strangulation in her neck.

(3.) MR . A. K. Bordoloi, the learned Counsel representing the appellant has rightly submitted that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. The only evidence that can be gathered from the deposition of the witnesses is that the appellant was accompanying the deceased from her village for selling some cakes out of which country liquor is brewed. There is also evidence to the effect as can be gathered from the deposition of P.W. 3 and P. W. 4 that at the point of coming back home the deceased and the appellant were seen together. The learned Counsel submits that the chain of events is not complete although the appellant was last seen with the deceased as to the factum of the complicity of the appellant in murdering or causing the death of the deceased.