STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH Vs. KHAGEN BRAHMO
LAWS(GAU)-2012-8-62
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on August 23,2012

STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH Appellant
VERSUS
Khagen Brahmo Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This criminal reference, under Section (30)(i) of Assam Frontier(Administration of Justice Regulation) Act, 1945, made by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge(First Track Court), Yupia, seeking confirmation of the conviction and sentence of accused, Khagen Brahmo under Section 302 of IPC in connection with Sessions Case No.570/2010(FTC), and the Criminal Appeal No.01(J) of 2012, filed by the convict-appellant Khagen Brahmo under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dated 29.12.2011, passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge(FTC), Yupia, in the case aforementioned, are heard together, and this single judgment shall govern both the cases.
(2.) Heard learned amicus curiae, Mr. D. Lazi for the convict-appellant, Khagen Brohmo and learned Addl. P.P., Mr. I. Basar for the State respondent.
(3.) Prosecution's case, in short, is that Anita Yukar, aged about 26 years, wife of informant, Yukar Macho(PW.1) was found lying dead in a drain, located at C-Sector, near Gandhi market. PW.1, husband of the deceased lodged an FIR with the Officer In-charge of Itanagar P.S. on 24.06.2008, at about 0930 hrs., alleging that, on the intervening night on 23.06.2008 and24.06.2008, in between 2330 hrs. to 0100 hrs., at any time, his wife Anita was found missing from the house and, on search throughout the night, she could not be traced out. On the following morning, at about 0530 hrs., her dead body was found lying in a drain, located at C-Sector, Gandhi market. He further alleged that he strongly suspected that Khagen, the accused, might have committed murder of his wife since the accused threatened his wife on 23.06.2008 at about 2100 hrs. before some neighbourers and the accused was found absconding since after the incident. 3.1 Officer In-charge, Itanagar P.S., accordingly, registered the case and taken up investigation. The accused was arrested in course of investigation and was forwarded before the Court. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant for commission for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 3.2 In course of trial, learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC) framed charge against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3.3 Prosecution, in course of trial, examined six witnesses namely, PW.1, Yukar Macho, husband of the deceased, PW.2, Smt. Janki Brahmo, sister of the deceased, PW.3, Lekon Dutta, an employee of SBI Branch and a witness to the seizurelist of a finger ring, PW.4, Kabak Talik, a witness of same seizure list, like PW.3, PW.5, Dr. K. Riba, who has conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and PW.6 is the I.O. of the case. 3.4 After recording of prosecution evidence was over, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and, thereafter, in course of defence evidence, the accused examined himself as DW.1. 3.5 In course of trial, prosecution proved the FIR lodged by PW.1, a seizure list of a finger ring and the seized materials, postmortem report and inquest report, etc. No documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the accused. 3.6 Defence case, so far ascertained from the crossexamination of the prosecution witnesses as well from the statement made by accused during examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the evidence adduced by the accused, is of a bare denial of the prosecution's case. 3.7 Learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge(FTC), considering the evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the charge framed against him and sentenced him to suffer RI for life and a fine of Rs.5,000/-(rupees five thousand), in default of payment of fine, to suffer further RI for three months. 3.8 After the judgment, learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, made a reference under Section 30(i) of Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice Regulation) Act, 1945, seeking confirmation of the judgment and the accused also challenged the judgment, preferring appeal from jail.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.