DIPAK BHATTACHARYYA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and order under challenge In the present appeal was passed on 30-12-1997, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur, in Sessions Case No. 105 (S)/97, convicting the accused-appellant under S. 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 months.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be stated as follows. At the time of occurrence, the appellant used to live with his brothers in a house, which had a common courtyard with the house of deceased-Monorama. On 22-4-1997 at about 5.30 p.m., the accused- appellant, Dipak Bhattacharyya, gave blows with a dao on his grand-mother, Sushama Ray, and her elder sister, Monorama Bhattacharyya, at their house and caused their death. The appellant fled away from the place of occurrence, came to Sootea Police Station with the said dao in his hand and surrendered there. The dao produced by the accused was seized by Seizure List (Ext. 4) and a G.D. entry was made in this regard. Sootea Police Station G.D. Entry No. 123, dated 22-4-1997, being the said entry. Thereafter, Sri Sadhan Roy, son of deceased Sushama Ray, lodged a written Ejahar (Ext. I) at the said Police Station and treating the same as First Information Report, police registered Sootea P.S. Case No. 40/97 under S. 302, I.P.C. against the accused-appellant. During the course of investigation, police visited the place of occurrence and held inquest over the said dead bodies. The accused-appellant made a judicial confession and upon completion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet against the accused appellant under S. 302, I.P.C. 2. When the charge framed under S. 302, I.P.C. was read over and explained to the accused-appellant, he pleaded not guilty thereto and claimed to be tried.

(3.) In all prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses including the Investigating Officer. The accused was also examined under S. 313, Cr. PC. and in his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offence alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the accused being, in brief, thus. The relationship between the accused and the deceased used to be strained. The accused used to suffer from insanity. At the relevant time, he was incapable of thinking. He does not know what he had done. He made the judicial confession, because of beating received at the hands of the police. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence.