KRISHNA MALO DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred from jail against a judgment dtd. 25/2/2022 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Sessions Case No. 13/2017 arising out of GR Case No. 5169/2016. By the aforesaid judgment dtd. 25/2/2022, the appellant was convicted for the offence under Sec. 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.3000.00 (Rupees three thousand), in default to pay fine and to suffer further imprisonment for six (6) months.

(2.) The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an ejahar on 8/10/2016 by the mother of the deceased who had deposed as PW7. As per the same, her daughter was married to the appellant about 1 years back whereafter she was physically assaulted by the appellant under the influence of alcohol. On 7/10/2016 at about 10 p.m., the appellant had assaulted her daughter causing injuries on her face and killed her by pressing her neck with a rope made of cloth and laid her on the ground. He had also tied her to a sewing machine and did not inform anyone and remained silent. At that time, the daughter was six months pregnant. Based on the aforesaid ejahar, a police case was registered, being Tarabari PS Case No. 292/2016 and investigation was done. On completion of investigation, the charge sheet was submitted. The formal charges were framed by the learned Court and on denial thereof, the trial had begun. In the trial, 9 nos. of PWs were examined, including the IO as PW6 and the Doctor conducting the post-mortem as PW9.

(3.) PW1 is a neighbour of the appellant who, however deposed that he heard that the deceased had committed suicide and the relationship between the deceased and the appellant was cordial. PW2 is also a neighbour who claims to have been called by the appellant at about 10 p.m. on the same date and on arrival, she saw the body of the deceased lying. She has also deposed that the appellant told her that the deceased was killed by someone. PW3 and PW5 are neighbours whose depositions, however are of not much relevance. PW4 is the Inquest witness whose deposition also does not play any significant role. PW6 is the Investigating Officer who had deposed that on lodging of the ejahar, the case was registered and he had made seizure of certain articles. PW7 (informant) is the mother of the deceased who has given a description of the event wherein she was informed over telephone that her daughter was in a critical condition and accordingly, she along with few other persons, including PW8, had come to the house of the appellant which is at Tarabari. PW7 resides at Jogighopa which is about four hours journey by road.