HAIDAR ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though our Constitution has guaranteed fundamental right and liberty to every citizen to be enjoyed in performance of duties and obligations it may not be considered as a licence to commit any offence as one may like. Liberty is not a licence to kill people. Here is a case where a life was lost as a result of quarrel between two housewives over children. We propose to open this case with a broad proposition by quoting Narotam Singh's case as reported in AIR 1978 SC 1542 :(1978 Cri LJ 1612). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed and held -

(2.) The story as to the prosecution case and as unfolded by the witnesses may be narrated in nut-shell as hereunder : Samejuddin a resident of Barpeta had to meet his death on 25th day of April, 1976 at about 9 or

(3.) Mr. S.R. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellant has made the following submissions before us : That the prosecution has contradicted its own story as narrated in the FIR by a new story as unfolded by the prosecution witnesses in course of trial. That the P.Ws. 1, 2 and 7 whom the prosecution relied as the most trusted witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused are not at all believable and trust worthly witnesses. Moreover, P.W. 7 was not an eye-witness at all. P.W. 4 Bilayat Hussain was most unreliable and as such the prosecution declared him hostile in course of the evidence when he deposed in contradiction to his earlier statement made before the police. It was not certain from whom the material Ext.Ka was seized as it appears from the seizure list (Ext.4) that P.W. 2 produced the spear stated to be used by the accused for commission of the crime but that was not the actual spear as because one of the witnesses, namely, P.W. 7 has stated that a spear was seized from the possession of one Asraf Khan, one of the accused. The medical evidence of the autopsy surgeon P.W. 8 was not conclusive about the nature of injuries on the person of Samejuddin, the deceased. The medical evidence discloses that there were two injuries on the chest of the victim. But the eye-witnesses to the occurrence as produced by the prosecution speak of one assault on the chest of the victim by accused-appellant with the help of a spear which he had in his hand. The version of P.Ws. 1 and 2 as regards assault on them differs from the statement made by them before police. The learned counsel for the appellant has lastly submitted that even if it is held that Samejuddin succumbed to the injuries which were inflicted by a spear blow on his chest by the accused, it was on a grave and sudden provocation and, as such, the gravity of the offence as against the appellant may come down to that of under S. 304 Part I and not one under S. 302 IPC. In support of the above contentions Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to us the evidence of the witnesses as produced by the prosecution.