Joymalya Bagchi, J. - (1.) The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.06.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalpaiguri, in Sessions Case 115 of 1991 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 304/Part II/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for eight years.
(2.) Prosecution case as levelled against the appellant and another accused person is to the effect in the evening on 31.3.1994, the appellant and one Etowa Asur struck his wife suspecting her to be a witch. Dhaniram, P.W. 12, informed the husband of the victim Budhu Asur, P.W.1, who was at that time in the house of Julu Asur, P.W. 2. Dhaniram informed that he had heard of the incident from one Sanicharwa Asur, P.W.3. Hearing of the incident, P.W.1 rushed to his residence and found that the victim was lying senseless in the veranda of the room. He along with others brought the victim to the hospital of the tea Garden around 9 P.M. As her condition was serious she was referred to Malbazar Hospital. At Malbazar Hospital the doctor declared her death. On the complaint of P.W.1, Nagrakata P.S. Case no.20/91 dated 3.4.1991 under Section 304 of IPC was registered for investigation against the appellant and Etowa Asur and charge sheet was filed against them. The case being a sessions trial one was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge for trial and disposal. Charge was framed under Section 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the same was read over to them. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 11 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents to prove its case. The defence of the accused persons was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial, the trial court by the impugned judgement and order dated 30.06.1994 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. By the selfsame judgment and order, co-accused Etowa Asur was acquitted of charge levelled against him. Nobody appears on behalf of the appellant.
(3.) Mr. Abhik Ghatak is requested to assist the court as amicus curiae.;