SARAPADA JAMATIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE convict Sarapada Jamatia in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1953 has appealed from Jail against his conviction and sentence of 10 years R. I. passed by the Sessions Judge, Tripura, on 8 -5 -53 under Section 304, Part II, Penal Code.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 10 -6 -52 at 10/11 A. M. the deceased Syed Ahamed an inhabitant of Brahmacharra was sitting at the Dhenki Ghar of Ananta Sadhu, when the accused appellant Sarapada Jamatia came and asked him 'O, Shala, I have struck you on the way in order to make you go home, but you have not done sa But you have come here and are sitting here. Go, go' saying so the accused struck Syed Ahamed with a lathi. Syed Ahamed ran to his house. He fell down in the court -yard saying that his heart and head are bursting. On query from his wife he told her that he had been struck at the home of Sadhu by Pagla. She noticed a swelling on the head of the Syed Ahamed. He did not regain consciousness after that and died during the early hours of the night. As the Police Station, Khowai is a little far off, report was made there by Nur Mahamed on 12 -6 -52 at 2 P. M., who took the dead body of Syed Ahamed also along with him. After inquest the O/C sent the body for postmortem examination which was performed the same day at about 4/5 P. M. Only one bruise 2' X 1' was found on the parietal region of the head caused by a blunt weapon. No other external injury was found on the body. On opening the brain, the doctor found congestion of the membranes of the brain, due to rupture of fine arteries.

(3.) THE accused has pleaded not guilty to the charge and has produced no evidence. Although there is no direct evidence that the accused gave the blow on the deceased's head when the latter was sitting at the Dhenki Ghar of Ananta Sadhu, there is sufficient and strong circumstantial evidence for coming to a reasonable conclusion that he did so. This is consisted in the statements of Ananta Sadhu P. W. 6, his daughter Guru Kanya P.W. 7 and his daughter -in -law Sachirani P. W. 8 and so also the statements of Nur Mahamed P.W. 11 and the deceased's wife Tajimennasa P. W. 2, along with the extra -judicial confession made by the accused to Ananta Sadhu just after the occurrence, the dying declaration of the deceased to his wife and the accused's own statement in the committing Court which is to be read as evidence in the case. That the deceased Syed Ahamed has died on account of the injury on the head given by a blunt weapon is proved by the Doctor's evidence who performed the post -mortem examination on the dead body. He is P. W. 3. I concur with finding of the learned Sessions Judge on the point that it is proved that the accused gave the lathi blow on the head of the deceased as a consequence of which he died later on.