LAWS(GAU)-1976-8-3

KALU RAM BRAHMA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM,

Decided On August 12, 1976
Kalu Ram Brahma Appellant
V/S
State Of Assam, Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Shri J.N. Barua, Assistant Sessions Judge, Goalpara at Dhubri in Sessions Case No.4 (D)/71 convicting the appellant under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months more. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, also directed that on realisation of the tine the injured be given a sum of Rs. 500/ - out of the total fine of Rs. 1,000/ -.

(2.) THE drama was enacted ort 26.9.1969 at or about 4 p.m. in a bazar, named and styled as 'Tipkai bazar", where, according to the injured first informant, P.W.2 Rupsing Brahma, he was selling "Pork" along with others. The accused after having purchased Pork from him returned back and took his own Dao and dealt several blows on the neck of the first informant where for he lodged the first information report to the police at Bilasipara on the very same day.

(3.) IT may be stated here that the accused person is a cultivator and was at all relevant time aged about 55 years, i.e. to say, he is at present aged about 63 years or so. It is also not contested by the learned Public Prosecutor, when it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused belongs to a backward class or community. Therefore, these are indubitable factors of the case. This is also proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that the injured P.W.2 Rupsing Brahma sustained 4 simple injuries caused by "sharp weapon" and the expert evidence disclosed that not a bone was cut, nor the injured lost his senses after receiving the blows in question. The Police investigated the case. But, unfortunately, in the present case, although the most material evidence of the case, namely, the weapon with which the assault was committed, was neither seized by the police officer conducting the investigation of the case, nor it was produced before the Court as material exhibit.