ADHIR SUTRADHAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case of intriguing death of a house wife in the night of 19.1.2000 at about 10.30/11.00 PM in her own house while living with her husband and seven children. The husband of the lady disappeared soon after the incident. His younger brother lodged an Ejahar with the local Police Station on the next day i.e. 20.1.2000 at 4 P.M. informing about the incident and stating, inter alia, that the appellant used to beat his wife frequently and he had done her to death. A case being Barpeta Road P.S. Case No. 13/2000, thus, came to be registered against the appellant u/s. 498(A)/302 IPC. The I.O. visited the place of occurrence, held inquest over the dead body, recorded the statements of witnesses and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. The investigation culminated into submission of charge-sheet against the appellant u/s. 498(A)/302 IPC, committal of the case by the Magistrate to the Court of Sessions, Barpeta for trial and registration of Sessions Case No. 18/2007. The learned Sessions Judge, on consideration of the materials and upon hearing the parties, framed charge u/s. 302 IPC against the appellant to -which, on being read over and explained, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The appellant, accordingly, stood the trial. The prosecution, in order to prove the charge, examined as many as 9 witnesses including the Investigating Officer. No witness was examined by the appellant in his defence although he was given the chance to do so after examining him u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. The defence maintained a stand of complete denial of the charge. The learned trial court, on the basis of evidence on record and upon hearing the parties, rendered the judgment dated 19.9.2007 in the aforesaid Sessions Case convicting the appellant and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default, to suffer R.I. for another two months for committing offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC. The appellant has preferred the instant appeal against the above judgment

(2.) We have heard Mr. K. Goswami, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant and Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned Addl. PP., Assam, for the Respondent-State.

(3.) We have been taken through the evidence of prosecution witnesses and other documentary evidence on record. We find no eye witness in this case and so it makes us to bank on the oral and circumstantial evidence available on record, for disposal of this appeal.