C.R.SARMA - (1.) HEARD Mr. R. C. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. P. Bhattacharjee, learned Addl. PP appearing for the State.
(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.2.04, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Sessions trial No.02(ST/U) 2004, thereby convicting the appellant under Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code (herein after called the 'IPC') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer another period of one month. The prosecution case, in brief, as may be necessary for deciding this appeal, is stated hereinbelow :- On the night of 07.08.03, the appellant and his wife i.e the deceased along with their son, namely, Sri Dasarath Debbarma, PW 6 were sleeping in their hut and at midnight, Sri Dasarath Debbarma, hearing quarrel between his parents woke up and found that the appellant had hacked his mother (hereinafter called, 'the deceased') on her throat by inflicting dao blows. Seeing the said incident, PW 6 rushed to his maternal grand father's house and informed him about the occurrence. On being so informed, the said grand father (PW 1) along with others rushed to the place of occurrence and found the deceased lying dead with injuries on her person. According to the informant, i.e PW 1, on their arrival in the place of occurrence, the appellant fled the place by leaving the dao under a tulsi plant, in the premises of his house. As it was a rainy night, police was informed in the next morning, over telephone, by Sri Hiranmoy Tripura (PW 2). The accused-appellant also surrendered before police on the next morning at about 5.10 am and he was arrested. On receipt of the telephonic information, police arrived at the place of occurrence and on their arrival, PW 1 i.e the father of the deceased lodged a written FIR (Exbt.No.1). During the investigation, police prepared inquest report in respect of dead body of the deceased, forwarded the dead body for post mortem examination, seized the offending weapon i.e the dao and examined the witnesses. The Medical officer (PW 9) also performed the post mortem examination opined that death was due to shock and haemorrhage, following the cut injury, inflicted on the throat and that the said injury was ante mortem and homicidal in nature, caused by sharp weapon. At the close of the investigation, police submitted chargesheet under Section 302 IPC and forwarded the accused to the court to stand trial. The offence under Section 302 IPC, being exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302 and explained the same to the accused person to which he pleaded not guilty.
(3.) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses, including the Medical officer (PW 9) who performed the autopsy and the INvestigating officer (PW 10). At the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused person was examined under Section 313 CrPC. He denied the allegations, brought against him and pleaded that on the night of the incident, a group of extremists had visited his house and finding the extremists in his house, he fled the house and that on the next morning, he found that his wife was killed by the extremists. He further stated that as he went to the police station to lodge a complaint regarding killing of his wife, police arrested him. No defence evidence has been adduced to substantiate the said plea, taken by the accused-appellant. The learned Sessions Judge considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the accused-appellant committed the offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him under Section 304 Part-I IPC. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this appeal. Mr. R. C. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial Judge committed error by convicting and sentencing the appellant, without sufficient evidence on record. It is also submitted that there is sufficient contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the number of injuries sustained by the deceased and the place of recovery of the weapon alleged to be used by the appellant. Mr. Debnath further submitted that the occurrence took place due to sudden quarrel between the husband and wife and that the appellant had no intention to kill his wife. It is also submitted that immediately after the occurrence i.e on the next morning, the appellant appeared before police and that the appellant has two daughters and one son to look after. In view of the above, it is submitted that considering the facts and circumstances under which the offence was committed and also the conduct of the appellant, a lenient view regarding punishment may be taken. Refuting the said argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. P. Bhattacharjee, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, has submitted that there is sufficient evidence against the appellant and that the learned trial Judge committed no error by recording the conviction and sentence as indicated above. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor drawing the attention of this court to the evidence of PW 6 i.e the son of the deceased and the appellant has submitted that the said boy clearly stated that he saw his father giving dao blow on the person of his mother and that there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of the said witness.;