DINESH SABAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have extensively heard Mr. R De, the learned Amicus Curie and Mr. D. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam

(2.) The validity of the judgment dated 20.7.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Cachar in Sessions Case No. 94/08 convicting the four appellants under Section 341/322/34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo an imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- by each of them and, in default thereof, to undergo RI for another 3 months. The appellants are also convicted under Section 341/34 IPC and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- by each of them and, in default thereof, to undergo SI for 15 days.

(3.) The Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 10.07.03 at about 2 pm, nine persons including the appellants wrongfully restrained Sadhu Tanti @ Banka Tanti (the deceased) on the road in front of the house of one Jiban Majhi, chased him and assaulted him with dao and lathi etc. carried by them at the backside of the house of one Smti. Sanaka Sabar (PW2) thereby causing severe injuries on him: the injuries inflicted upon him resulted in the death of the deceased. The FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased, namely Sri Harinandan Tanti (PW-5) on the same day at about 10.45 pm. The Dhuarbond P.I.C. made a G.D. entry No. 142 dated 10.7.2003 and the FIR was then forwarded to O/C, Silchar P.S. for registering a regular Case. On receipt thereof, the Officer-in-Charge, Silchar P.S. registered a regular case under Section 147/ 148/ 149/ 341/ 302 IPC. During the course of investigation, the police visited the place of occurrence, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, prepared the inquest report, sent the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem examination, collected the examination report and recorded the statements of the witnesses and made some seizure as well. 3.A On completion of the investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet against these four appellants under Section 341/302/34 IPC while the remaining five FIR named persons were discharged from the case due to lack of sufficient evidence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, thereafter framed a charge against the appellants under Section 341/302/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses including the informant, who was none other than the father of the deceased (PW-5). On the conclusion of the trial, the appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., whose defense was that of total denial, but they declined to adduce evidence in their defense. After hearing both the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence which is now under challenge in this appeal.