STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH Vs. TADON TATIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above mentioned Death Reference and the criminal appeal have arisen out of the judgment and order dated 12.11.2001, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pasighat in Sessions Trial Case No. GR. 93/94 whereby the accused Tadon Tatik was convicted for the offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced to capital punishment of death. The reference is for confirmation as required under section 368 CrPC, read with Regulation 30 (i) of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945. The appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant.

(2.) The incident for which the accused has been tried in the above case, took place way back on 13.7.1994 and this is second round of litigation before us. The accused was earlier tried and vide judgment dated 30.1.1997, the trial Court imposed capital punishment of death and the matter came up before this Court in Criminal Death Reference No. 1 of 1997 and Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 1997 and 70 (J) of 1997 which was disposed of vide judgment and order, dated 24.6.1997. The case was reported in 1997 (III) GLT 594 (1998 (1) GLJ 135) whereby this Court set aside the conviction and sentence and remanded the matter back for de-novo trial in accordance with law and as per directions contained therein. Pursuant to the above directions, the case was tried de-novo and the witnesses were examined afresh and the impugned judgment was delivered by the trial Court. It may be mentioned here that as per the directions of this Court, the trial Court has engaged Shri D. Gogoi, a senior lawyer of Dibrugarh Bar to defend the accused. However, the accused made a prayer in writing that he desires to be defended by Shri Muk Pertin, the learned defence counsel and as such the trial Court had no other alternative but to appoint Shri Muk Pertin as defence counsel. It seems that the trial Court has complied with the directions of this Court and the constitutional right of the accused to be defended by a lawyer of his choice has prevailed and hence, no objection has been raised on that count. So far furnishing of copies of documents under section 207 CrPC is concerned, the same was duly complied with. As regards the requirement of appointment of interpreter is concerned, the trial Court has this to say :

(3.) The prosecution allegation, in brief, is that the accused, was a contractor by profession, used to reside along with two wives, Sumi Tatik (PW 6) and Parvoty Jamoh (PW 5). The accused had a son and daughter through his first wife Sumi Tatik (PW 6) and son through the second wife Parvoty (PW 5). From the materials on record, we find that the accused used to live with all the worldly comforts and he had also four servants for his domestic help. On the fateful day of 13.7.1994, the two wives of the accused were away from the house and around noontime while his servants were watching TV, the accused took his children to his bed room and closed the door. After some time, as stated by Rajendra Kumar Das (PW 1), the accused came out of the bedroom with a dao in his hand and stated 'I have finished all the children'. There was blood marks on his body. The servants out of fear ran out of the room. The accused came to the police station and reported the incident, which was registered as GD Entry. Police came to the place of occurrence and found the dead-bodies of two children and while the third was still bleeding, she was removed to hospital where she was declared dead. On the basis of the report of the police officer, FIR was lodged and police started investigation.