SABUR ALI MANDAL Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 30th September, 1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in Sessions Case No. 57 (K-G)/89, thereby the trial Court while acquitting the co-accused Muslumuddin and Sukur All, convicted the present appellant of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) Briefly stated, prosecution case was that on 3rd May, 1987, the dead body of Tufan Dewani was found lying along the village road with multiple incised wound. It was brought home, an FIR, Ext. 5 was lodged by Md. Bakhtar Ali, P.W.-4,on the basis of which a case under Section 302 IPC was registered and taken under investigation. During the course of investigation sniffer dogs were employed by the Investigating agency and on the basis of these evidence the accuseds who had a long standing property dispute and log-horns in civil litigation were arrested. Certain incriminating articles, such as, Ganjee, Paijama and a pair of Hawai Chappals were seized from the house of the accused and these articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, as per its report the Ganjee was found to be stained with human blood. On competition of investigation, the accused appellant along with others, since acquitted, were charge-sheeted and tried for the above offence. Their defence was one of simple denial of their complicity in the crime. The trial Court while acquitting two others found the appellant guilty and convicted him as already noted above. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel, appearing for the appellant has raised the following points that the circumstances relied upon by the trial Court are not firmly established nor do they form such a chain as to unerringly point to the accused appellant as to the perpetrator of the crime; even in the circumstances as relied upon by the trial Court, are taken on their face value yet, they are not compatible with the only hypothesis of guilt of the accused- appellant lastly, these circumstances as relied upon by the trial Court have not been put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, as has been noted by the trial judge, there is no eye witness to the occurrence. According to the trial Court, the prosecution case hinges on the following circumstances :