TAHER ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 11.3.94 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Sessions case No. 181 (M) of 1992 convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him thereunder, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for further one month.

(2.) The case in shont is that on 23.10,90 at or about 6.30 P.M. P.W. 1 Abdul Malek lodged a comptlaint before the Officer-in-charge of Jagiroad Police Station alleging, inter alia that on the previous day on 22.10.90 at or about 8 A.M. the appellant had "clashed" with Abdul Nur (since deceased) regarding a boat. It was further stated in the said complaint that on that very day at or about 6.30 P.M. the informant along with some other saw the dead body of deceased lying by the side of a lake called Nam Beel. Informant also expressed his suspicion that appellant may be the perpetrator of the crime. On the basis of this complaint, Police registered an F.I.R. under Section 302 IPC. Upon conclusion of investigation Police submitted chargesheet against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The case was ultimately committed to the court of the learned Sessions Judge. Upon perusal of the material on record, the learned Sessions Judge framed a charge under Section 302 IPC against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty. In course of the trial prosecution examined 7 P.W.s in all. Of the said P.W.s only P.W. 3 is said to be the eye witness. Therefore, fate of this appeal hinges entirely on the evidence of P.W.3.

(3.) P.W.3 in his evidence be fore the learned trial court stated that about 3 years ago he went to watch a football match at Dungarbori. After the match was over, P.W.3 returned home at or about 5.30 P.M. He further stated that the appellant and the deceased had a quarrel near the said lake called Nambeel. He also stated that the appellant stabbed the deceased with a dagger. P.W.3 specificially claimed that he had seen it with his own eyes that the appellant stabbed the deceased thrice and then fled away. This is more or less the statement made by P.W. 3 in course of his examination in chief but during cross examination he had to submit that after returning to the village soon after the occurrence he reported to none about the incident. He did not also report the incident to the members of the family of the deceased or to P.W. 1 who lodged the F.I.R.