HERMAN TIRKY @ HERMAN ORANG Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 22-02-2008, passed, by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi, in Sessions Case No. 11 (DM) 2006, convicting the accused-appellant, under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, as surfaced at the trial, may, in brief, be described as under: Deceased Mergena Munda was the wife of the accused Hermen Tirky @ Hermen Orang. Katrina Kheruwa (PW2) used to live in the same residential quarter, at Nonaipara Tea Estate, wherein lived Mergena Munda (since deceased). On 10-05-2005, while Mergena Munda was taking tea in the house of PW2, the accused, too, came there to have his tea. While PW2 was making tea for the accused, the accused, suddenly, ran away. Though PW2 had not noticed as to what the accused had done to Mergena Munda, but when the accused fled away, PW2 noticed that Mergena Munda had sustained injury and she was dead. On hue and cry being raised from the house of PW2, many of the neighbours of PW2, including PW1, who is younger brother of the said deceased, came and, on coming to know about the occurrence, he (PW1) lodged a written Ejahar at Paneri Police Station alleging to the effect, inter alia, that while Mergena Munda was sitting at the verandah of the house of PW2 and having her tea, accused went there with a knife, stabbed her to death and ran away. Treating the said Ejahar as First Information Report (in short, 'FIR'), Paneri Police Station Case No. 48 of 2005, under Section 302 IPC, was registered against the present accused- appellant. During investigation, police visited the place of occurrence, held inquest over the dead body of Mergena Munda, which was also subjected to post mortem examination. On completion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet, under Section 302 IPC, against the accused aforementioned.

(3.) IN support of their case, prosecution examined as many as 8 (eight) witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offence, which he was alleged to have committed, the case of the defence being that of denial. No evidence was adduced by the defence.