JUDGEMENT
R.V.MORE,J. -
(1.)The appellant original accused has approached this Court by way of aforesaid appeal challenging the judgment and order dtd. 23/4/2019 in Sessions Case No. 18 of 2014, where under he has been convicted for an offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also fine of Rs.5000.00 (Rupees Five thousand) only and in default to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for two months.
(2.)The FIR which set criminal law in motion was registered on 5/9/2010 at the instance of Shri Mono Banai before the Williamnagar Police Station as Williamnagar P.S. Case No. 39(9) 2010 under Sec. 302 IPC, to the effect that on 4/9/2010 at about 11:30 a.m., the niece of the informant, Smti. Babli Koch was killed by her husband i.e. the appellant/accused Shri Manoj Baishya in his residence at P.W.D. Colony, Williamnagar.
After registration of the aforesaid FIR, investigation was taken up by IO, WPSI V. Ch. Marak and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 2/12/2010 against the appellant accused for an offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC.
After hearing the state defence counsel and prosecutor, in terms of provision 227 Cr.P.C., charge was framed by the Sessions Court against the accused person on 10/3/2015 for committing an offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the appellant accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
In order to prove the case against the appellant/accused, prosecutor examined seventeen witnesses. After the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, appellant/accused was examined by the Court in terms of provision 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied his involvement for the alleged crime. The appellant/accused however, did not adduce any witnesses.
After appreciating the evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that offence against the appellant/accused punishable under Sec. 302 IPC is proved and accordingly as stated above, sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment.
(3.)We have heard Mr. R. Kar, learned counsel for the appellant/accused and Mr. A. Kumar, learned AG for the state.
Mr. R. Kar, learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that there is no eye witnesses to the incident and the prosecution has failed to prove the motive for the crime and the entire prosecution case is based on the edifice of circumstantial evidence. Mr. R. Kar further submitted that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and prosecution must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. Mr. R. Kar also submitted that though the prosecution examined altogether seventeen witnesses, there are contradiction in their evidence. In this regard he submitted that P.W. 1, Shri Mono Banai deposed that he received a phone call regarding the death of the victim and filed the FIR on the same day, but the appellant/accused was already at the police lockup by then as one more FIR had been filed before that by Smti. G.R. Marak, but neither the said witness was examined by the prosecution nor her FIR was proved or exhibited in Court. He also submitted that the post mortem was performed on 5/9/2010 but collection of viscera is shown on 4/9/2010, therefore there is a serious lapse on the part of investigation and collection of viscera cannot be prior to the conduct of post mortem. Mr. R. Kar further submitted that the Sessions Court failed to appreciate the fact that non collection of finger prints of the accused had adversely affected the accused and only on that ground, conviction of the present accused is bad in law. Mr. R. Kar lastly submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the present case is not enough to convict the appellant/accused with the crime in question and on overall consideration of evidence as a whole, the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and as such, he is entitled to benefit of doubt.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.