(1.) This appeal has been filed challenging a judgment and order of conviction dated 7.4.98 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia in Sessions Case No.40(T) of 1995. By the aforementioned judgment and order, the accused appellant before us has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years.
(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that at about 11.30 AM on 23.10.94, PW 1, Sital Bhumiz, lodged a FIR in the Philobari Out Post stating that at about 9 PM of the previous day i.e. 22.10.94 his elder brother, the accused appellant had assaulted his father causing grievous injuries to him, as a result of which, the injured succumbed to his injuries. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, an entry in the General Diary of the police outpost was made and the FIR was forwarded to the Doom Dooma Police Station which was received at the Police Station at about 1 PM of the same day. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, Doom Dooma P.S. Case No. 293 of 1994 was registered. According to the prosecution, after the FIR was received at the Philobari Out Post, the in-charge of the Out Post, who was later entrusted with the investigation of the case, went to the place of occurrence and on reaching the same, found the dead body of Budhu Bhumiz in the house of the first informant. An inquest was held on the dead body and the same was forwarded for post mortem. In course of investigation, the accused appellant was arrested and the statement of a large number of persons were recorded. A sketch map of the place of occurrence was also prepared by the Investigating Officer. At the conclusion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the accused appellant. The case being exclusively trial-able by the court of Sessions, the case was committed to the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia where a charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the accused appellant. As the accused appellant claimed to be tried, as many as six witnesses were examined by the prosecution in course of the trial, at the conclusion of which, the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid, giving rise to the present appeal.
(3.) We have heard Ms. S. Senapati, learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court and Mr.Z.Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam.