MD. MONOWAR ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr. K K Bhatta, learned Amicus Curie assisting this Court and Ms. S Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. This jail appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.8.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara in Sessions Case No. 161/2007 convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/ , in default, to undergo another RI for six months.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, briefly stated is that on 26.03.07, the informant, who is the father of the appellant and husband of the deceased, lodged an FIR before I/C Krishnai Police out post alleging that on that day at about 8.00 a.m. taking advantage of his absence at his house, the appellant killed his second wife by striking her with a sharp weapon. The Officer in Charge of Krishna Police Outpost forwarded the FIR to Dudhnoi Police station for registration of the case. On the basis of the said FIR, Dudhnoi Police Station Case No. 32/07 under Section 302 was registered against the appellant. After investigation of the case, the police charge sheeted the appellant U/s 302 IPC. On commitment of the case before the Court of Sessions Judge, Goalpara, the charge under section 302 IPC was framed against him to which he pleaded not guilty. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses including the medical officer and the I/O of the case. After examining the prosecution witnesses, the appellant was examined under Section 313 CrPC. The plea taken by the appellant was one of complete denial to the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.

(3.) PW 1 further testified that the dead body of the deceased was forwarded to the Goalpara Civil Hospital for post mortem examination and after the post mortem examination, the dead body was handed over to him. He also deposed that the police seized one dao from the appellant vide seizure list at Ext. 4. In his cross examination however, he took a U turn and stated that nobody including his relatives saw the killing of his wife by the appellant and that he did not make any enquiry from his son as to whether he killed the deceased or not. We cannot fail to notice that PW1, in his cross examination, has contradicted his statement in his examination in chief. On going through the statement of PW1, it is obvious that his statement cannot be relied upon at all: his credibility is seriously in doubt. Perhaps he did not want to depose truthfully against the appellant. We have also gone through the statement of PW2, who is the elder brother of the PW 1. This witness, in his examined in chief, initially deposed against the appellant, but whatever incriminating evidence made by him against the appellant has been set at naught by his statement in his cross examination. For example in the cross examination, he contradicted himself by saying that he could not say as to whom the seized dao did belong or whether the seized dao was used by the appellant. Similarly, the statement of PW 4, PW 5, PW 6, PW 7, PW 8, PW 9 did not improve the case of the prosecution inasmuch as these witnesses did not support PW1 or PW2 in any material particulars.