SONTI KONWAR Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant was in his teens when the occurrence had taken place on 30.12.79. He was not only immature, ho was also poor because of which State defense had to be provided to him in the course of trial it has been done in this Court also. One precious life was no doubt lost on 30.12.79 the aforesaid date, at Gunaram young in age was backed to death on the aforesaid date when be was in Lakua -Nabarhabi weekly bazar selling his merchandise, The occurrence bad been witnessed by P.W. 4 Lila, P.W. 5 Tilak and P.W. 6 Jatin, All of them have stated that the accused came suddenly, gave two blows with a dao on Gunaram, one of which fell on his neck. The accused was soon apprehended and handed over to the police. Relying on this eyewitness account along with what has been stated by the accused in his own statement recorded at the time of framing of the charges as well as on conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge Jorhat has found the Appellant guilty under Section 302 of the Penal Code and has awarded the minimum sentence visualised.

(2.) WE had heard this appeal once on 17.3.83 and by a judgment delivered in the Court had dismissed the appeal. But for reason recorded in our order dated 18.3.83, we proposed to re -horn the appeal. The first question which we have to answers whether re -hearing is possible in such a situation. Shri Yadav has submitted that us the transcribed judgment had not been signed by us, as has been noted in the order passed on 18.3.83, Section 362 Code of Criminal Procedure would not stand in the way of re -hearing is the bar created by this section operates when the Court has signed its judgment. We have also been referred rightly to Section 353(2) of the Code which deals with the subject of judgment and has stated that a judgment delivered in the Court becomes complete after the transcript is signed. To fortify this position, Shri Yadav has referred us to three decision, all of Allahabad High Court. In S.S. and R. Corporation, Meerut v. State : AIR 1951 All 709, it has been stated that though a judgment dictated in open Court can be altered by the Judge before it is signed, it is the Judge alone who can do so. The same view has been expressed in Faulad v. State : AIR 1961 All 326. The last decision is a rendering by a Full Bench of 3 learned Judges in Sangam Lal v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer (FB) : AIR 1966 All 221, which has opined that a judgment delivered in open Court but not signed and sealed can be altered.

(3.) SHRI Yadav contends that though in the judicial confession nothing has been stated about any overt act of the deceased in the market, that might be accounted by the fact that in the statement, the accused bad stated whatever be wanted to say and there was no body to question him to say anything furthers in regard to what had happened. It is then urged that as the, prosecution witnesses have not deposed about any motive of the crime or the background of the same, the one unfolded by the accused merits our acceptance because it is probable and the accused has stated about the same twice when be was questioned, by the Court without departure in material particulars. As no crime is committed without motive by a sane person we have felt inclined to accept the one told to the Court by the accused. Though lack of proof of motive would not weaken any prosecution case, the motive, if made known to the Court, can be accepted, even if the same comes, from the mouth of the accused. The accused hag stated about what bad taken place a day or two earlier to the occurrence and thrice; once on 4.1.80, then on 23.12.80 and anally on 25.2.81 and was consistent in saying what bad happened then. So, we are inclined to accept this part of the defense case without any demur. But then this by itself is not enough to regard the ultimate killing as due to "grave and sudden provocation" to bring the case within Exception 1 to Section 300 as pleaded by Shri Yadav. At this stage, we may remind ourselves as to when a provocation can be regarded as grave and sudden. The law in this regard has been succinctly laid down by the Supreme Court in K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra : AIR 1962 SC 605. We may only quote what has been stated in paragraph 85 which has summarized Indian Law in this regard: