ANIL GOGOI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.6.91 passed by the Sessions Judge. Dibrugarh & Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 83 (D)/86 convicting the Appellant under Section 302 IPC sentencing him thereunder to suffer R.I. for life and pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ - in default to R.I. for one year.

(2.) THE facts in brief is that, on 22.6.85 a dead body was found at the paddy field of one Sitaram Choutal and accordingly he reported the matter to the headman of the area who lodged an FIR to the Chabua Police Station on the same day. It was alleged that the dead body bore several cut injuries in her neck and face. The injuries were caused by dao blows and nobody could identify the said dead body. In view of the same, it appears that the Dibrugarh PS was also notified relating to the finding of the dead body. It is alleged by PW -11 Second Officer, Chabua P.S. in his evidence that on 27.6.85 he received a message from Namrup PS that from Namrup one Anil Gogoi, his wife Menaka Gogoi and their two years old daughter were missing. PW. - 11 states in his deposition that he sent a message to Namrup O.C. asking Menaka's relatives to come to Chabua PS. On arrival at Chabua PS, they were shown few photographs of the deceased and on the basis of those photographs the said relatives recognised the dead body as that of Menaka. On the basis of the FIR and after recording the statements, the case considered to be under Section 302 of the IPC. So, the case being triable by the Sessions Judge only and was committed to the Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Judge examined as many as 12 witnesses.

(3.) ON the other hand the father of the deceased was not produced before the court to give evidence nor Puwali Gogoi who was supposed to have lodged the FIR in Namrup Police Station was brought as witness in the case. According to us, these two were vital witnesses who could have identified the deceased properly and would have thrown better light on the facts of the case were deliberately withheld. There are oilier serious infirmities in the deposition of PW -5 who alleged that on 20th June, one Suala went to his residence and said that "what" the accused Anil had done to his wife and minor daughter. However, from the evidence of the PW -5 himself it appears that Puwali Gogoi has lodged the FIR only on 28.6.85. Both the versions cannot be true. According to the FIR, it was only 22 June, 1985 in the morning the dead body was found which was done away with only on 21st/22nd night. Besides, there are material contradictions in the depositions of various witnesses before the trial court and on the basis of the said depositions, the killing of the deceased Menaka cannot be traced to Anil Gogoi.