C.R.SARMA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 08.10.2007, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati, in Sessions Case No. 237(K)/2006.
(2.) BY the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted the appellant, namely, Shri Nitya Kalita, who is the younger brother of the deceased, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the 'IPC') and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one hundred) only, in default, suffer rigorous imprisonment for another period of 3 (three) months. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the convicted person, as appellant, has come up with this appeal. We have heard Mr. J.M. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant and Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent. The prosecution case, in brief, as revealed during the trial, may be stated as follows: On 07.08.2001, at about 6-30 p.m., the appellant, who is the youngest son of the informant, killed his brother, namely, Shri Kusal Kalita (herein after referred to as the "deceased") by hitting him with an iron rod on the head as well as on the back, in their court-yard, following a quarrel between them. Shri Bhoareswar Kalita (PW 1), father of the deceased and the appellant lodged an FIR (Ext. 1), on the same day, with the police. On receipt of the said FIR, police registered a case being Kamalpur P.S. Case No. 128/2001 (G.R. Case No. 447/2001), under Section 302 IPC and launched investigation into the matter.
(3.) DURING the course of investigation, police seized the incriminating iron rod (i.e. the weapon of assault), vide Ext. No. 2, which was used by the assailant, prepared inquest report (Ext. 3), in respect of the dead body of the deceased and got the post mortem examination (Ext. No. 4) done. The investigating Officer (PW-7) also arrested the accused-appellant, and prepared the sketch map. At the close of the investigation, police submitted the charge sheet (Ext. No. 9), against the appellant. The case being committed, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302 IPC, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined as many as 7 (seven) witnesses, including the Medical Officer (PW- 6) and the Investigating Officer (PW- 7). At the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused person was examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short, the "Cr.P.C."). While denying the allegations, brought against him, the appellant took the plea of alibi by stating that he, being away from his house, was absent at the time of occurrence. He pleaded complete ignorance about the death of the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge, considering the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, as indicated above.;