TAJUDDIN BARBHUIYAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.12.2000, passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Hailakandi, in Sessions Case No. 57/99.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 20.4.1998 at about 10.00 AM, the deceased Abdul Sahid was called up by his brother to attend a 'Bichar' at his place and accordingly, Addul Sahid went there. After some time, the family members heard the shout from Adbul Sahid and they rushed to the place of occurrence. It may be mentioned here that the house of the accused person and the deceased are situated nearby. When the wife and sons of the deceased reached the place of occurrence, they saw the accused persons assaulting their father and when they tried to intervene, they were also assaulted. Afterwards, Abdul Sahid was removed to hospital but he succumbed to the injuries before reaching the hospital.

(3.) IN the opinion of the Doctor, the death was due to shock and in haemorrhage a result of the injuries sustained. In this case, we find that there was no cross examination of the Doctor and the death of the deceased as a result of the injuries sustained by him is also hot seriously disputed. P.W. 1 is the informant and wife of the deceased. She had also followed her two sons, namely, Sarifuddin and Tajuddin, P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 respectively, and reached the place of occurrence after hearing the shout for help and found the accused persons assaulting the deceased. It may be mentioned here that in this case the charge was framed against, as many as, five accused persons and the trial proceeded against all of them. However, on conclusion of the trial, the accused Zakir, Kamrul and Nurul were discharged and the trial court convicted Salimuddin and Tajuddin @ Babul under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000, in default to, further imprisonment for 3 months. The two accused appellants were also convicted under Section 326/34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 cash, in default to, further imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences were directed to be run concurrently.