SADATANTI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.12.96 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Sessions Case No. 48(S)/95 convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 4 months.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that at about 12 P.M. in the night of 16.2.94, P.W.2, Smti Sumatipan Tanti, verbally lodged an information in Sootea Police Station that at about 5 P.M. of the same day, one, Sada Tanti, a resident of Ghiladhari Tea Estate, Line No. 1 came to the house of the informant's father Jogipan Tanti with a Khukri in his hand and caused the death of Jogipan Tanti by inflicting cut blows on the neck and head of Jogipan Tanti. On the basis of the aforesaid information, G.D. Entry No. 377 dated 16.2.94 of Sootea Police Station was recorded immediately after the aforesaid information was received, P.W. 8 Pumenda Baruah, Sub-Inspector of Police on being instructed by Officer-in-Charge of Sootea Police Station, left for the place of occurrence. From the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer proceeded to the Majuligarh Tea Estate to which place the victim, had in the meantime been taken, for treatment. According to the prosecution, the victim Jogipan Tanti had died even before being taken to the hospital. On the next day, P.W. 1, Shri Badal Tanti lodged a written ejahar in the police station in respect of the incident in question, on the basis whereof, Sootea Police Station Case No. 16/ 94 was registered. According to the prosecution, P.W. 8 visited the place of occurrence again on the next day and held inquest on the deadbody of Jogipan Tanti in the hospital. In course of investigation of the case, the police seized a Khukri(Mat Ext. 1) as produced by Smt. Sumatipan Tanti, P.W. 2 vide Ext. 1, the Seizure list and recorded the statements of a large number of persons. On the same day, according to the prosecution, the accused-appellant presented himself at Sootea Police Station and confessed to having killed Jogipan Tanti. On being transferred, P.W. 8 handed over charge of the investigation of the case to P.W. 6 Shri Kunjalal Pator who submitted the charge sheet against the accused. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur by order dated 6.6.95 committed the case for trial to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur. In the court of Sessions, a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused-appellant who pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. In the course of the trial, 8(eight) witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case whereas the defence examined one witness. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge by judgment and order dated 20.12.96 convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as aforesaid giving rise to the present appeal.

(3.) We have heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant and Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the accused-appellant has very elaborately taken us through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses examined in the case as well as other materials on record. A security of the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses would go to show that the prosecution relied on the evidence of P. Ws 1,2,3 and 4 in proving the alleged incident. A brief recital of the evidence of the aforesaid four witnesses may be set out at this stage. P.W. 1 is the son-in-law of the deceased. In his evidence, he has stated that his house is at some distance from the place of occurrence and on hearing a hue and cry being raised in the evening, he came to the place of occurrence and learnt that the accused- appellant had assaulted the deceased with a Khukri. According to this witness, he along with some others, had taken the injured to the hospital in a pushcart. But the injured succumed to the injuries on the way. On the next day, this witness lodged the ejahar in the police station. According to this witness, P.W. 2 had informed him that the accused had caused the injuries on the deceased. P.W. 2 Smt. Sumatipan Tanti is the daughter of the deceased. According to P.W. 2, on the date of occurrence, in the evening, while she was busy cooking, her father, the deceased, was sitting in the verandah when the accused came to their house. According to this witness, the accused asked the deceased for some tobacco and at that time, the accused inflicted cut injuries on the deceased with a Khukri. Hearing the alarm raised by the deceased, this witness claims to have come out of the kitchen and found the accused-appellant cutting the deceased with a Khukri. According to P.W. 2, she snatched the Khukri from the hands of the accused appellant and found the deceased injured in the neck as well as in the hand. According to this witness, the deceased fell down in a pool of blood. P.W. 2 in her deposition, has further claimed that she informed P. W. 3 Joykrishna Tanti, a neighbour about the incident and that the accused fled away from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, according to this witness, P.W. 4 Sushil Bowsi arrived at the place of occurrence and P.W. 2 informed P.W. 4 about the details of the occurrence. P.W. 2 has further deposed that, thereafter, the three of them took the injured to the Garden Hospital from where he was sent to Majuligarh Hospital. This witness has further deposed that on the day of occurrence itself, she had lodged a verbal information with regard to the occurrence in Sootea Police Station and that in the next morning, when the police came to their house, she had handed over the Khukri which she had snatched from the accused appellant to the police. This was done in the presence of P.Ws 3 and 4. In cross-examination, P.W. 2 had denied that in her statement made to the police she had not reported that P.Ws 3 and 4 had come to the place of occurrence; she further denied that she did not tell the police that she had seen the accused hacking the deceased with a Khukri. P.W. 3 is a neighbour who lived in another part of the same house where the deceased was staying. According to this witness, on the day of occurrence at about 6.30 P.M. while he was having his meal in his house, he heard the accused-appellant asking the deceased for tobacco in the latter's house. P.W. 3 stated that a little later he heard P.W. 2 Sumatipan Tanti shouting and on coming out, he could see the accused-appellant and P.W. 2 pulling at each other's hands. This witness has further deposed that the accused-appellant had a Khukri in his hand which was snatched away by P.W. 2. This witness has deposed that he saw the deceased lying in a pool of blood at the edge of the verandah of his house and hue and cry having been raised. P.W. 4 along with many others, came to the place of occurrence. The witness has further deposed that after the Khukri was snatched away by P.W. 2 from the accused-appellant, the same was kept in his house and on the next day, on being asked by the police, P.W. 3 has produced it. P.W. 4 Sushil Bowsi, another neighbour of the deceased, had stated in his deposition that at about 6 O' Clock on the day of occurrence, while he was proceeding from his house to the shop, he heard hue and cry in the house of P.W. 2 and on coming there, he could see the accused appellant coming out from the house of the deceased. According to this witness, the accused-appellant was running and the deceased was found in a pool of blood at the edge of the verandah. On reaching the place of occurrence, this witness was told by P.W. 2 that the accused appellant had assaulted the deceased with a Khukri. This witness has further stated that thereafter, they took the deceased to the hospital in a pushcart but the deceased was already dead by that time. P.W. 5 Dr. P.K. Barman conducted the postmortem on the deadbody of the deceased Jogipan Tanti. In his deposition, he has stated that in the course of postmortem examination, he found the following injuries on the deceased:-