LAL KALANDI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants stand convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by Sessions Judge, Karimganj in Sessions Case No. 3/95 vide judgment dated 5.9.95.

(2.) The deceased Sudhir Kalandi and the present appellants are brothers. On the fateful day, i.e. 22nd September, 1993 around 8/9-00 A.M. when Sudhir left his house informing his wife that he was going to his elder brother. He was allegedly attacked by the accused with a Dao causing him as many as 7 incised wounds as noted below:

(3.) Since they were unrepresented and unassisted, Ms. G. Deka was appointed Amicus Curiae. She has accordingly appeared and argued the appeal raising the following points: (1) that the trial Court has failed to consider the impact of discharging me accused Haria on the prosecution case as a whole; (2) an adverse inference should have been drawn against the prosecution for nonproduction of the G.D. Entry, which was in fact the earliest version of the prosecution case which has been wilfully suppressed. The trial Court was palpably wrong in liberally making the use of the case diary statement in support of its own views discarding the statements made by the witnesses before the Court. The trial Court was in error in seeking corroboration of a hostile witness P.W.-6 from another informed witness P.W.-8. Trial Court's approach to appreciation of evidence is extremely purfunctory. The inherent infirmities in the evidence of P.W.-8 and P.W.- 6 has gone unnoticed. The trial Court was equally wrong in seeking corroboration of the retracted confession from the evidence of a hostile witness P.W.-6 and informed witness P.W.-8,