DHARMA KANTA KARMAKAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.6.1993 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Sessions Case No. 12(D)88 thereby holding the Appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) PROSECUTION case stated in brief was that the Appellant, a labour in Nadua Tea Estate lived with his wife Defendant Parbati Karmakar in Kacharia Lane of the said Tea Estate, On the date of incident, i.e., 3rd August, 1987 around 6/7 a.m. the Tea Garden Chowkidar, Chainu Nayak (P.W. 1) was informed that some incident had taken place at the house of the accused. Seeing the door of the Appellant's house shut, he approached the Tea Garden Manager who in turn asked him (Chowkidar) to open the door with the help of police. Accordingly, he proceeded to the police outpost and lodged a report (Ext -I) and the incident was entered into in the General Diary. Police accompanied him to the Appellant's house and the accused was ordered to open the door by the police, but he declined. Ultimately he was threatened with the gun. It was on this threat being held that the accused opened the door. A ghastly scene presented itself, his wife was lying in a pool of blood with incised wounds, two kids, i.e., Appellant's sons were also inside the house. It is apparent that the accused handed over a blood stained dao to the police which was seized as material Ext -I. An inquest was also Held and the accused was arrested. Witnesses were examined and the dead body was sent for post -mortem examination, On completion of investigation, the accused was charged and tried for the offence. His defence, as can be gathered from his statement recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure is one of plain denial of the prosecution story as a whole. The trial Court however found him guilt and sentenced him as already noted above. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) MR . Goswami, learned P.P. on the other hand maintained that despite discrepancies pointed out by the learned amicus curiae, substantial evidence available on record and relied upon by the trial Court is sufficient to sustain conviction as recorded by the trial Court.