SALON THAUSEN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred from Jail against the judgment dtd. 17/6/2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu in Sessions Case No. 309/2017 (New) / Sessions Case No. 97/2010 (Old). By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted u/s 323/302 of the IPC with R.I. for life and a fine of Rs.10,000.00, in default, R.I. for 1 year and further a fine of Rs.1000.00 u/s 323 IPC in default, R.I. for 3 months.

(2.) The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 15/12/2009 by the PW4. It was stated that on the previous night at about 11.30 PM when the informant along with the deceased who was his maternal uncle were going to his house at Kheroni, the appellant had suddenly punched him on the right eye and thereafter assaulted the deceased with sharp weapon causing grievous injuries, as a result of which the deceased had expired in the Diphu Civil Hospital. Based on the Ejahar, an F.I.R. was registered and after completion of the investigation, formal charge sheet was filed. The charges were accordingly framed and on denial thereof the trial had begun.

(3.) In the trial, the prosecution had adduced evidence through 8 nos. of PWs and the informant was the PW4. The PW1 and PW2 are co-villagers who are hearsay witnesses. PW3 had stated that his house was near the place of occurrence and hearing a commotion, he had gone to the place of occurrence which was about 200 metres and found the deceased, who was his brother-inlaw lying on the ground beside the kaccha road in a critical condition. Then the PW3 had called the people residing nearby and brought the deceased to his house and whereafter by means of an ambulance, the PW3 along with 3 boys of the village had taken the deceased to the Diphu Hospital. The deceased had succumbed to his injuries at about 3 am. Meanwhile, the matter was informed to the police who had come in the morning and got the postmortem done. He has deposed that later he had heard from the people of the village that it was the appellant who had assaulted the deceased to his death. In his cross-examination, he clarifies that he was not a witness to the incident and the accused and the deceased had cordial relationship and there was no quarrel.