KRISHNA SONOWAL Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Actg)-Some trite questions like the scope of Section 154 of the Evidence Act. 1872 dealing with grant of permission to the party who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party, what is Tcircumstantial evidence, its weight and value and other cognate and agnate matters are required to be reiterated in the appeal. In this context we recall a significant observation of Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes: It is sometimes more important to emphasise the obvious than to elucidate the obscure Indeed, it is so.

(2.) The appellant has appealed against the judgment and order dated 16.12.81 passed by Shri S.P. Rajkhowa, Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh convicting him u/s. 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life.

(3.) On 1.4.77 at 7 p.m., P.W. 6, 5. Rahman, the office-in-charge of Dibrugarh Police Station received a telephonic information from one Golap Barua that a rickshaw puller had been stabbed near the State Transport Office. The Officer made an entry in the station register and proceeded to the place of occurrence where he found the injured Bir Bahadur and sent him to the Medical College hospital for treatment. However, Bir Bahadur succumbed to the injuries on the following day. On 2.4.77 P.W. 6, 5. Rahman was informed by one Bishnu Pandit, another rickshaw puller that on the previous day around 6.30 p m. he learnt from some boys that a rickshaw puller had been injured by some young persons. He went to the place and found the injured (Bir Bahadur) a rickshaw puller. On his query Bir Bahadur told that he bad been stabbed by a dagger but he could not recognise the assailant. Bishnu Pandit took the injured to Ganga Prasad, the owner of the rickshaw, which Bir Bahadur used to ply. The statement was put into writing and treated as the ejahar (Ext. 1). The police investigated the case, arrested the appellant and one Gajen. They were committed to the court of sessions to meet charges under section 302/34 I.P.C six witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The accused pleaded not guilty.