MAN SINGH PRAJA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement dated 6-12-91 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh and Tinsukia, in Sessions Case No. 109 (T)/88 convicting the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him thereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay certain amount of fine.

(2.) The case, in short, is that three days after the occurrence on 16-9-87 at or about 12.20 p.m., a complaint was lodged by P.W. 1 Diti Saikia at Makum Police Station alleging that on 13-9-87 at or about 7.30 p.m. the appellant had assaulted the father of the informant, namely, Dilip Saikia (since deceased) severely on the head. Thereafter the injured was taken to Dibrugarh Medical College hospital for treatment and ultimately on 15-9-87 in the afternoon at or about 4 p.m. the deceased succumbed to his injury. An explanation was given as to the delay in lodging the FIR stating that as the informant was busy with treatment of the deceased, he could not lodge, the complaint on time. On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR was registered under Section 302, I.P.C. at the police station against the present appellant. After usual investigation charge sheet under Section 302, I.P.C. was submitted against the appellant. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh and Tinsukia, for trial and disposal. Upon perusal of the materials on record, a charge under Section 302, I.P.C. was framed against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty. In course of the trial prosecution examined in all 8 PWs. Appellant examined none. Defence of the appellant was of complete denial of the prosecution case.

(3.) On examination of the evidence on record we find that PWs. 1, 2 and 4 claimed to be the eyewitnesses of the occurrence. PW 1 is the informant of the case, He is also son of the deceased. In his evidence he had stated that after taking food he was sleeping. It was about 9 p.m. when he heard some commotion in the house of P.W. 5, Sravana Praja. They thought that the commission must be due to some quarrel that had taken place. As the hue and cry increased, the deceased went to see as to what had happened. The house of P.W. 5, Sravana Praja, was stated to be situated some 50/60 yards away from the house of the informant. After some time, being requested by his mother, the informant also went to see where his father had gone. P.W. 3, Prabin Hatibaruah, also went there. Prabin was a servant in their house. Reaching there, the deceased found that the appellant was assaulting one Bhan. This Bhado has however been not examined as a witness in the trial Court. Then the deceased intervened in the matter and thereafter he was returning home. While coming to his home, deceased, informant and others reached the house of the appellant. Soon after that the appellant assaulted, the deceased on his head with a lathi. P.W. 1, Diti Saikia, also stated that the instrument with which the appellant had assaulted the deceased may also be an iron rod. Being assaulted, the deceased fell down. After that the appellant also advanced to assault the informant. However, the informant fled away. After some time the informant and his party again returned to the house of the appellant but could not find him. The deceased was brought back to his home in injured condition. Afterwards they carried the deceased to hospital in a push cart for treatment. As no doctor was then available at Makum dispensary, the deceased was taken to Tinsukia civil hospital. Deceased was under treatment at Tinsukia civil hospital for a day and on the following day he was again shifted to Dibrugarh Medical college hospital. On the next day the deceased breathed his last. In course of cross-examination this witness further stated that while they were carrying the deceased to the hospital, they met a police patrolling party and they orally reported them about the occurrence.