BABUL SARKAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 13.9.1983 passed by the Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur convicting the appellant under section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life.

(2.) At all relevant time Babul Sarkar, the appellant, was about 19 years of age. He was an artisan in a watch repairing shop. The deceased Narayan Mandal was also a watch repairer. P.W. 7, Govinda Roy and the deceased Narayan were paying guests of P.W. 2, Subash Chandra Sarkar. On 12.6.81 in the morning an altercation ensured between P.W. 3, Smti. Pratima Rani Sarkar and Bolai (the absconder). Pratima alleged that Babul had taken away some watch repairing materials. At this Bolai, the absconder, objected. He is the maternal uncle of appellant Babul. In the meantime, P.W.2. Subash, the husband of P.W. 3, Pratima, came and Bolai complained to him about his wifes mis- demeanour in bringing allegation against his nephew Babul. P.W. 7, Govinda and the deceased Narayan also came to take their lunch. It is thus seen that Babul Sarkar, the nephew of Bolai was the target of attack and imputations were made against him that he had taken away some watch repairing materials. When Bolai complained to Narayan the latter asked that the imputations were made against Babul and therefore, he should come and confront Pratima and Bolai should not be angry. At this Bolai being enraged left the place. Afterwards, when P.W. 7, Govinda and Narayan were taking meals served by P.W. 3, Pratima, Bolai appeared and scolded Narayan and Govinda. P.W. 2, Subash intervened. Babul Sarkar also appeared there and joined his maternal uncle and asked P.W. 7, Govinda and Narayan to come out. Babul was in an agitated mood and wanted to enter inside the house but Pratima obstructed. It is alleged that Babul gave a blow on her hand with a knife or dagger. Pratima raised an alarm and fen down. In the meantime, Babul and Bolai attacked Narayan. Narayan fell down on receiving an injury. It is alleged that a knife blow was inflicted on the neck of Narayan. Immediately after assaulting Narayan, the appellant and Bolai left the place. Thereafter, an ejahar was lodged, the police came, investigated the case and arrested the present appellant. It is alleged that the accused-appellant made a confessional statement which was recorded by P.W. 1, Shri A.K. Das, Magistrate. In the confession, the appellant admitted that he went with hi, maternal uncle Bolai to the place of occurrence. He also stated that he had a knife but he said that he made an attempt to assault Narayan but failed. He claimed that his uncle took away the knife from him and hit Narayan on neck. He fled away from the place of occurrence and threw the dagger in a nearby field. It is alleged by prosecution that prior to the making of the confession, the appellant led the police to the pace where the knife was thrown. A small knife with wooden handle was seized on 14-6-81 at 11 a.m. One side of the blade was sharp but the other side was blunt. The knife measured 9 inches in length with handle. As the co-accused Bolai absconded, he was declared absconder. The police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and the absconder. The appellant was sent up to the Court of Sessions to meet the charges. He was charged for commission of offence under section 324 I.P.C. for causing simple injury to P.W. 3, Pratima. He was also charged under section 302/34 for causing the death of Narayan.

(3.) The prosecution examined 10 witnesses in support of its case. There are three eye witnesses to the occurrence, namely, P.W. 2, Subash Chandra Sarkar, P.W. 3, Pratima Sarkar and P.W. 7, Govinda Roy. In his examination under section 313 Cr. P.C. the accused denied that he had assaulted Pratima Rani Sarkar. In respect of the confession, the accused stated that he had been tutored by the police, accordingly, he made the statement which was neither true nor voluntary. However, he admitted that be led the police in consequence of which the knife or dagger was recovered from the paddy field. He also stated that he was present at the place of occurrence. He said that he snatched away the dagger from his maternal uncle Bolai and then threw it in the paddy field. Learned Judge accepted the testimony of the eye witnesses, believed the confession as true and voluntary and convicted the appellant under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. The appellant was also convicted under section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to two months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.200/, in default to suffer S.I for one month.