DIPAK SHARMA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal directed against the judgment and order dated 7.9.96 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonitpur at Tezpur convicting the accused Dipak Sharma under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him thereunder to imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to further 6 months R.I.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that on 23.2.93 at about 2 P.M. at Purana Boraigaon under Helem Police Station, while the deceased Hariprasad Kotel was working in his mustard seeds cultivation field, the accused Dipak Sharma hacked him with a dao, serving his head. P. W. 1, Homelal Sharma was them only 20 yards away passing urine, and from there he saw the accused inflicting dao blow on the neck of the deceased. Out of fear PW 1 ran away and informed the deceased's son Kumar Katel, P.W. 3 about the occurrence. In the meantime, the accused came to the Police Station with the severed head of the deceased wrapped in a towel and with a dao in his hands and narrated the occurrence before PW 8, Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station. On his verbal information, PW,8 made General Diary Entry Ext-7 and seized the dao, material Exhibit - 1 vide seizure list, Exhibit - 4 P.W. 8 then visited the place of occurrence, found the headless dead body there, held inquest of the headless dead body and of the severed head, and sent the accused for recording his confessional statement, and PW 7, Smti. R. Bora Saikia, Judicial Magistrate, recorded his statement, Ext. - 5 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The police collected the post mortem examination report of the dead body performed by PW 6, Dr. B.K. Bora. Within an hour of the occurrence, the deceased's sonPW 3 Kumar Kotel lodged the PER, Ext-2. On completion of investigation, the police submitted charge- sheet against the accused under Section 302 IPC. After the case was committed to the Court of Session, a charge under Section 302 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the trial the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied to have; made any confessional statement, pleaded innocence and said that he was falsely implicated. He declined to adduce any evidence.

(3.) After considering the: evidence on record and hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above, hence this appeal.