DIPEN RAJBONGSHI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY judgment and order, dated 30. 6. 03, passed, in Sessions Case No. 108/2000, by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar, the appellant stands convicted of an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described thus : On 15. 4. 2000, accused Dipen Rajbongshi, who had been working as a chowkidar, at the construction site of PW 6, went to the house of PW 4, who was supervisor at the said construction site, and informed PW 4 that he (accused) had killed his wife by means of a dao and requested PW 4 to save him. After informing PW 4 that he had killed his wife, the accused left, PW 4, then, went to the house of PW 2, who had also been working at the said construction site, and infomed PW 2 as to what he (PW 4) had been reported by the accused, whereupon both PW 4 and PW 2 went to the house of the contractor, (PW 6) and informed him that the accused had reported to PW 4 that the accused had killed his wife. PW 6, immediately, informed Silchar Police Station over telephone about the fact that the accused had reported to have killed his wife. Based on this information, GD Entry No. 224, dated 15. 4. 2000, was made. Police visited the room, where the accused used to live; but finding the room locked from outside, the police personnel came back. On being instructed by PW 6, PW 2 lodged, on the following day, a written information about what they had heard. Based on this written information, FIR was registered. The investigating officer (PW 8) came to the room of the accused, broke open the door of the room and found a female dead body lying on a chair with cut injury on the neck. Inquest was held over the said dead body and a dao was seized treating the same as the weapon of offence. The accused was taken into custody and, on completion of investigation, charge-sheet, under Section 302 IPC, was laid against the accused.

(3.) DURING trial, prosecution examined altogether eight witnesses including the investigating officer. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 Crpc and, in his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed offence alleged to have been committed by him, his case being that his wife, Chandra Kumari (deceased), had assaulted him with a dao and out of rage, he snatched away the dao and gave her a blow with the dao, the blow fell on her neck and she died. The accused also asserted, in his statement, recorded under Section 313 Crpc, that he had not struck his wife with the dao with intention to kill her. No evidence was adduced by the defence. Having held the accused guilty of the charge, the learned trial Court convicted the accused accordingly and passed sentence against him, as mentioned above. The accused has, therefore, preferred this appeal.