MD AKALU SHEIKH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants stand convicted under Sections 302/201/34 I.P.C. by Sessions Judge, Dhubri as per judgment dated 17.5.93 delivered in Sessions Case No. 3690 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default of payment of fine to suffer 3 (three) months R.I. They are also sentenced to undergo 3 (three) years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 200/- each or in default of payment of fine to suffer one month's R.I.

(2.) Briefly stated, prosecution case was that the deceased Sakitan was married to the accused Akalu, about a year prior to the incident. They lived an otherwise happly life which was short -lived for the fact that Akalu for few months past had ben entertaining the thought of divorcing Sakitan, which he could not, as he had no money to pay either as maintenance or 'Mehr' of Rs. 300/- (as can be gathered from the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W. 11). His sister accused Maleka a divorcee also lived with him while his brother lived in a nearby village Alubhui Pahar. Few events are important in the prosecution case and have to be traced back, from the date of lodging of the F.I.R., Ext. 2, on 25.8.86. On the Thursday immediately preceding the date of F.I.R., Ajabi the mother of deceased Sakitan, who resided just adjacent to the house of the accused and lived on begging, left for Lakhipur leaving behind Sakitan with her another daughter Kamila Khatun, P.W. - 8. On Friday, Sakitan expressed to her that her husband desired her to accompany him to his brothers place at Alubhui. They accordingly left on Friday. Accused Akalu returned alone on Saturday night while Maleka, who had also accompanied them, returned on Sunday afternoon. As Akalu returned alone, Kamila, enquired of Akalu about his wife, he outright declined to have taken her (Sakitan) at all. Her mother Ajabi also returned on Sunday afternoon. Naturally, Kamila reported to her what had happened. By the time she returned Kamila had been insisting the accused to tell her the truth, but seeing his obduracy she reported to the villagers. A 'Salish' or 'Bichar' (a sort of conciliatory procedings or meeting) was being held on Sunday at the house of Joynur Master, P.W.- 3 the mother went there and requested the prominent villagers who had gathered for 'Salish' to ask accused Akalu to bring her daughter back. The villagers and some members of the Village Defence Party (V.D.P.) (a non-Government organisation constituted in this part) came and questioned the accused who gave out the truth that Sakitan had been killed by him and Maleka. An ejahar, Ext. 2 was lodged on 25.8.86 by P.W.-l, which led to the registration of a case u/s 201/ 302/34 I.P.C. On completion of investigation the accused were charged and tried for the above offence. The trial Court finding them guilty convicted and sentenced them as noted above. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) As has been rightly noted by the trial Court, the prosecution case hinges on circumstantial evidence and the following incriminating circumstances, have been noted by the trial Court in basing its order of conviction. The circumstances are :- (1) That the accused appellants were last seen together with the deceased. (2) Recovery of the dead-body at the instance of the accused. (3) Extra-judicial confession made by the accused.