SORHAB ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused in Sessions Case No. 31(B) of 1990 on the file of the Sessions Court, Barpeta, who was convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000.00 is the appellant herein.

(2.) The prosecution case can be summarised as follows :- Jamela, daughter of P.W. 3, and the appellant came to be on terms of intimacy as a result of which she became pregnant. Appellant refused to marry her. The occurrence took place when she was six months pregnant. Late in the night on 11-2-1989 (in the early hours of morning of 12-2-1989) when the male inmates of Jamela's house were absent, appellant went there armed with a dagger, threatened the inmates of the house and forcibly took Jamely to a nearby field and forced her to drink some liquid. She cried out to others to rescue her but that was in vain. When P.Ws. 3 to 5 reached the field, appellant had disappeared and Jamela was lying on the ground. A glass and a piece of paper were found nearby. Jamela was taken home. Jamela told P.Ws. 4 and 5 that the appellant administered medicine to her and that she wished that Allah may do him good. Immediately she died. Hearing the outcry P.Ws. 2, 6 and other neighbours came there. P.W. wrote Ext. 1 ejahar as required by P.W. 2 who gave it at the Howli Police Out-Post where it was received by the Officer-in-Charge. He sent it to Barpeta Police Station where a case was registered against the appellant. P.W. 9 was directed to take charge of the investigation. He went to the scene of occurrence and held inquest over the dead body of Jamely. P.W. 1 performed autopsy. P.W. 9 questioned witnesses, seized the mat on which the dead body was found in the house and the glass found at the scene of the occurrence. He arrested the appellant and after completing investigation, laid the charge against the appellant.

(3.) On the appellant pleading not guilty to the charge, prosecution examined 9 witnesses. The appellant did not tender any evidence. The appellant when questioned denied all the aspects of the prosecution evidence. Sessions Court, however, acted on the prosecution evidence and convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.