GUDULU ORANG Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 10.4.2007 rendered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Biswanath Chariali in Sessions Case No. 242/05 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant who is serving sentence aforesaid has preferred this appeal through jail authority. We have heard Mr. P.N. Choudhury, learned counsel as Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Dhanesh Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State Respondent.

(2.) Prosecution has a very short story. On 7.1.2005 at about 7 pm appellant killed his sister-in-law (wife of the elder brother) by giving blows on her head and other parts with a sharp axe. A written Ejahar was lodged on 8.11.05 by one Handu Orang, which was received at 6.30 pm and registered as Biswanath Chariali P.S. Case No. 09/05 under Section 302 IPC. In the said Ejahar it was mentioned that the appellant has been suffering from mental disorder. The I.O. investigated the case, examined witnesses and after completing the other formalities submitted charge-sheet against the appellant. The case being committed to the court of Sessions, the learned trial court framed charge against the appellant under Section 302 IPC which was explained and read over to him. The appellant having pleaded innocent stood the trial. In order to bring the aforesaid charge home, the prosecution examined in all 9 witnesses and on conclusion of prosecution evidence examined the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. placing before him all the incriminating evidence tendered by the witnesses. He denied the allegations and on being asked declined to adduce any evidence in his defence. The appellant simply pleaded innocence and denied of the charge.

(3.) Mr. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae, submits that the appellant was suffering from mental disorder at the time of commission of the offence and as such he is entitled to the benefit provided under Section 84 of the IPC. In the FIR itself the prosecution projected a case of mental disorder of the accused, and therefore, it is not incumbent upon the appellant to prove his state of mental disorderness in his defence.