GULJAR ALI @ GULJAR HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P.C. Dey, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent State. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.4.2012 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Sessions Case No. 125/2010, corresponding to GR Case No. 882/2010, convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 304B IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another one month under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7(seven) years under Section 304B IPC; with direction that both the sentences should run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, as unfurled from the written FIR filed by one Abedur Rahman, is that soon after solemnization of marriage with his daughter, the appellant and his family members started demanding a sum of Rs. 1 lac and a pulsar motor cycle as dowry and due to failure to fulfill the said demand, they tortured and killed his daughter Smti Jafrine Aktar by hanging inside their house. The police received the FIR and registered the Morigoan P.S. Case No. 119/10 under Section 304B/34 IPC. The IO, Tarun Ch. Kalita (P.W.-9), conducted the investigation. During the investigation he visited the place of occurrence, prepared a sketch map thereof, got (he inquest over the dead body held by Circle Officer (SDC) and also got the post mortem examination conducted in the Morigaon Civil Hospital on 22.8.2010. The I.O. recorded the statement of the witnesses and after collection of the post mortem report, submitted the charge-sheet against the present appellant only, without sending up the names of other three accused persons, under Section 304B IPC. On committal of the case by the concerned Magistrate, the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon, considered the materials on record and framed charge under Section 302/304B IPC against the present appellant which was read over and explained to him. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly he stood the trial.

(3.) The prosecution, in order to prove the aforesaid charges examined as many as 9 witnesses, including the medical officer and the IO, but the appellant declined to examine any witness, although he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and offered a chance to adduce evidence in his defence. The learned trial Court, at the conclusion of the trial, and on consideration of the evidence on record and upon hearing the parties, passed the impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing the appellant as mentioned earlier. Being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the said judgment and order the appellant has approached this Court in appeal.