MAKLIS UDDIN MAKLISUR RAHMAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Helaluddin, an unfortunate boy of 7/8 years old had to meet his death on 23.9.83. at about 6/7 P.M. P.W. 1 Md. Alauddin is the elder brother of the deceased who is a shopkeeper at Asimganj Tinmukhi in Karimganj. According to P.W. 1 on 23rd September, 1983 at about 6 in the evening while he was in his shop, he was reported by some people that his brother Helaluddin was run over by a car running towards Ratabari which had killed him on the P.W.D. road near Nankar. P.W. 1 hurriedly went to the place of occurrence and he found the dead body of his brother Helaluddin lying on the P.W.D. road surrounded by huge crowd. He noticed an incised wound on the neck of his brother and the body was smeared with blood. This left no doubt in his mind that his brother was stabbed to death by somebody and on such suspicion, P.W. 1 went to the Police Station and lodged an ejahar with the Officer-in-Charge, Patharkandi Police Station in the same evening. On receipt of the ejahar Police started investigation, visited the spot and after completion of the enquiry and investigation submitted charge sheet against the present appellant Maklis Uddin Maklisur Rahman to stand the trial. The appellant who was the only charge sheeted accused had to stand the trial in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar and Karimganj at Silchar. The charges were framed under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused and while explaining the charges, he took the plea of denial. The prosecution thereafter led the evidence to prove the charges against the appellant and in the course of the trial as many as seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge recorded the statements of the accused under section 313, Cr. P.C. The defence did not adduce any evidence, perhaps, on the ground that the accused pleaded not guilty. The learned trial court on going through the evidence on record, direct as well as circumstantial evidence, as adduced by the prosecution, found that the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the learned trial court held the accused to be guilty under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. However, no separate sentence was passed by the learned trial court under section 201, I.P.C. to the accused. The accused who is the appellant before us now challenged the impugned judgment and order of conviction of sentence inflicted on him by the learned Sessions Judge holding him guilty under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C.

(2.) Mr. M.A. Laskar, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before us that the conviction of the appellant is absolutely without any evidence on record and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of doubt and as such, the findings of the learned trial court holding the accused guilty under sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. is wholly untenable in law. The learned counsel has led us to the evidence adduced by the prosecution. We have scanned the evidence also and at our cursory glance we have noticed that there are two witnesses, namely P.Ws. 3 and 4, whose evidence are based by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused apart from the circumstantial evidence and the discovery of the weapon stated to be used by the accused at the time of commission of the offence.

(3.) Before we take up the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 and to scrutinise the correctness be of the findings of the learned trial court let us examine the other evidence on record.