ASIM KUMAR RAY,J. - (1.) THIS Appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 12th September 2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalpaiguri in Sessions Case No. 408 of 2000 thereby sentencing the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years more for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the case of the Prosecution is that on 27.6.1999 around 7 P.M. the appellant/accused allegedly murdered his wife Mongri Soren by causing grievous injury on her neck with an axe. The death was instantaneous. The incident occurred in the residence of the deceased at Baroidighi Tea Estate. The deceased was an employee of the Tea Esate. The matter was reported to Matelli Police Station by the son of the deceased-victim. On the basis of such report Metalli P.S. Case No.31/09 under Section 302 of I.P.C. was registered. It was investigated into. On completion of investigation Charge sheet under Section 302 of I.P.C. was submitted. The matter was committed to the learned Court of Sessions. In course of trial Charge under Section 302 I.P.C. was framed, it was read over and explained to the accused/appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial 11 witnesses were examined from the side of the prosecution and a number of documents including Seizure List, P.M. report, forensic laboratory report, were exhibited and the offending weapon was marked as Material Exhibit-I. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge, Jalpaiguri passed the judgement and order of conviction and sentence impugned. Hence, this Appeal.
(3.) MR . Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has invited our attention to the F.I.R., Inquest Report and the oral as well as documentary evidence, which are on record. He has contended that there is no eyewitness in this matter. The time of incident is not coming out either from the F.I.R. or from the evidence of P.W.5 and casts doubt on the occurrence of the incident. The seized weapon and garments were not identified by the witnesses during trial. The appellant was under the influence of liquor and the same will come out from the evidence of P.W.5 as well as the Inquest Report. It is his further contention that the inquest was conducted after the investigation was started. He has invited our attention to Section 85 I.P.C. and has submitted that the appellant has committed the offence, if any, under the influence of liquor and as such he may not be held guilty. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court be interfered with and set aside.;