SALEH AHMED, ASSAM Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by the convict, is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 06.10.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur at Tezpur, in Sessions Case No.166/2005, convicting the

(2.) A criminal investigation was set in motion based on an FIR lodged on 25.01.2005, on the basis of which Jamuguri P.S. Case No.10/2005 under Section 341/302/109/34 IPC was registered. The prosecution story is that Md. Jalaluddin (PW-3) on 25.01.2005 has lodged an FIR alleging that on that date at about 10 A.M. while his elder brother Jainal Sheikh (the deceased) along with his daughter Jyotshnara Khatun @ Begum (PW-4) and son Md. Ismail Hussain (PW-2), aged about 12 years and 8 years, respectively, was carrying stone chips in the gunny begs on his bicycle from the nearby Jiya Bharali river to the Dighali Chapari Masjid, the accused appellant along with Md. Nur Mohammad Ali and Md. Iddrish Ali waylaid him in an isolated place near the Jiya Bharali river, out of a previous grudge and killed him by inflicting blows on different parts of his body such as neck, head etc. with sharp weapon. The police after registration of the case has visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of the witnesses, who are acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., conducted the inquest and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC was filed against the accused appellant alone. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate vide order dated 20.07.2005 committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions and accordingly Sessions Case No.166/2005 has been registered and numbered. The learned Sessions Judge on 16.08.2005 framed the charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused appellant, which when read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial commenced.

(3.) The prosecution in order to bring home the charge against the accused appellant has examined 8(eight) witnesses, namely, Sri Moti Acharjee (PW-1), the witness to the inquest report (Ext.-1) as well as the seizure memo (Ext.-2); Md. Ismail Hussain (PW-2), son of the deceased, who accompanied him and claims to be the eye witness; Md. Jalaluddin (PW-3), who according to the prosecution lodged the first information report and the brother of the deceased, who also claims to be an eye witness; Smt. Jyotshnara Begum (PW-4), daughter of the deceased and who also accompanied the deceased and another eye witness to the occurrence; Md. Muslem Uddin (PW-5), another witness to the inquest; Md. Mainul Haque (PW-6), who claims to have seen the accused appellant running away from the place of occurrence with a dagger in his hand; Sri Dilip Bharali (PW-7), the Investigating Officer and Dr. Apurba Kr. Sarmah (PW-8), who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Jainal Sheikh. The prosecution witnesses were duly cross-examined by the accused appellant. The statement of the accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. The accused appellant, however, did not examine any defence witness despite the opportunity given.