DEEPAK KARMAKAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, by the convict, is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 10th July, 2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat, in Sessions Case No.60/2010, convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/ - (Rupees One Thousand), in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3(three) months.

(2.) A criminal investigation was set in motion on lodging of a First Information Report (FIR) by Smti. Rimpi Karmakar (PW -2), the mother of the deceased and the wife of the accused/appellant, on 20th March, 2010, with the Officer -in -Charge of Kamarbandha Police Station, alleging that at about 10:00 PM on the previous night, i.e. on the night of 19th March, 2010, her husband Deepak Karmakar (the appellant) gave blow to her daughter Jaya Karmakar and pressed her neck and thereafter, pour kerosene oil on her person and set her on fire.

(3.) DURING trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses, namely, Dr. (Mrs.) Rekha Boruah (PW -1), who conducted the autopsy and submitted the post mortem examination report; Smti. Rimpi Karmakar (PW -2), the witness to the occurrence; Smti. Bhani Karmakar (PW -3), who was a reported witness; Shri Dilip Karmakar (PW -4) before whom extra judicial confession, according to the prosecution, was made by the accused; Shri Bisheswar Karmakar (PW -5), who is another reported witness ; Shri Dipu Tanti (PW -6), another witness before whom extra judicial confession was allegedly made; Shri Rahul Medhi (PW -7), the learned Magistrate, who recorded the statement of PW -2 under Section 164 Cr.PC; Shri Amit Karmakar (PW -8), the witness to the seizure and Shri Rajesh Tanti (PW -9) and Shri Chenmoy Nath (PW -10), who are witnesses to the inquest. The prosecution has also examined Shri Dambourdhar Bora, the Investigating Officer as PW -11. The witnesses were cross examined by the defence. The statement under Section 313 Cr.PC was also recorded. The defence did not, however, adduce any evidence despite giving opportunity in that regard.