AKONI TAMULI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned counsel for the appellant and also Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

(2.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 20. 12. 2002 passed in Sessions Case No. 62 (VH)/2001 by the learned Session Judge, Dhemaji convicting the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC and sentence him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, further rigorous imprisonment for another three months. For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, a brief facts of the cases are stated below:-On 23. 6. 2001 at about 9. 00 AM, the informant's (PW 1) brother-in-law Ramani Chutia (PW 3) was coming back from his elder sister's house and when he reached the gate of the accused-appellant Akoni Tamuli, the latter inflicted injuries on various parts of his body by means of Khukri' with attempt to cause death. FIR was lodged by PW 1 on the basis of which the Gogamukh P. S. Case No. 86/01 under Sections 326/307/34 IPC was registered. The injured PW 3 was medically examined by Gogamukh Public Health Centre and he was referred to North Lakhimpur Civil Hospital. From there he was again referred to Gauhati Medical College Hospital for further treatment. The police seized a ganji during the investigation. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellant under Sections 341/326/307 IPC. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, on commitment of the case, charge was framed under Section 307 IPC against the accused-appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined in all, eight witnesses including the Medical Officer (PW 7) and the I. O. ( PW 8 ). The defence did not examine any witness. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC, in which he pleaded innocence. After the trial, the learned Session Judge Dhemaji passed impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing the accused as mentioned above.

(3.) MR . Konwar, learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence. PW 3, Ramani Chutia (injured person), in cross-examination clearly stated that he did not see any other persons at the time of occurrence and as such there was no eye witness. He also submits that in the cross examination of PW 3, he categorically stated that he (PW 3) was not in talking terms with the accused-appellant as he filed a case against him earlier. This indicates that there was some rivalry between the accused-appellant and the injured person.