GUWAHATI, India, Sept. 19 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Aug. 20:
1. The present appeal has been preferred from jail against the judgment and order dated 16.06.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat, Assam in Sessions Case No. 68/2022 under Section 302 of the IPC [corresponding to Section 103 BNS], thereby sentencing the appellant to undergo RI for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) in default, further imprisonment for 3 months.
2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 11.07.2022 by one Nipen Mura who is the elder brother of the deceased (PW2). It was stated in the Ejahar that the younger sister of the informant was married to the appellant and they had led a conjugal life for a period of about 8 years. He had learnt that two days ago, a quarrel had taken place between them and the appellant had beat his younger sister as a result of which she had taken shelter at the house of the informant. On the date of lodging of the Ejahar at about 4 p.m. when the informant was not at home, the appellant had come to his house and after hacking the neck of the younger sister with a dao, he left for his home. When the informant came home, he saw his sister bleeding and on enquiry came to know about the incident. Subsequently, his younger sister was admitted in the Bokakhat Civil Hospital by taking her in a 108 Ambulance but the Doctor had declared her dead.
3. Based on the Ejahar, the formal FIR was registered under Section 302 Indian Penal Code leading to registration of Bokakhat Police Station Case No. 86/2022. The investigation was accordingly initiated wherein the Investigating Officer (IO) had visited the place of occurrence, recorded statements of the relevant witnesses, prepared sketch maps, collected PM Report and after completion of all the formalities had laid the Charge Sheet. The charges were accordingly framed by the learned Court under Section 302 of the IPC and on its denial, the trial had begun in which the prosecution had adduced evidence through 11 nos. of witnesses.
4. PW1 is the Doctor, who had conducted the Post Mortem on the body of the deceased. He had made the following observations: "In my opinion the cause of death of the deceased is due to Syncope following shock and hemorrhage as a result of neck injury sustained by the deceased." The PM Report was proved as Exhibit P1.
5. PW2 is the informant, who is the elder brother of the deceased. He had stated that at the time of the incident, he was not present in his home and the deceased was with her son, aged about 6 years. When he was proceeding to Namghar, he heard some hue and cry and returned to his home and found the sister lying in the kitchen and his nephew - Nabajyoti (PW4) had told him that the accused had cut the deceased. The PW2 had deposed that he found the deceased in the kitchen with her neck slit. He had also stated that three days prior to the incident, the appellant had tortured the deceased because of suspicion and thereafter the deceased had taken shelter with her younger son at his home. The FIR was proved as Exhibit P2. The PW2 was subjected to cross-examination wherein he had admitted of not witnessing the incident. He had however denied that no statement was made by him to the IO that the son of the deceased had told him that the accused came to his house and cut the deceased on her neck with a pruning knife. It is also denied that he did not state before the IO regarding the previous incident of three days prior when the appellant had tortured his sister for which she had taken shelter at his place with her younger son.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=tuqye3PhFs%2BBDn75ghiOpP5lmCyp%2BKEFmJaV5VCpFd5lE7Z57dLU8h4aO0L%2F4ggZ&caseno=CRL.A(J)/107/2023&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010186352023&state_code=6&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
