JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Indira Shah, J.

Both these appeals are arising out of the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri in Sessions Case No. 145/2006 against the same person. The accused/appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand), in default, further, Simple Imprisonment for 1(one) year. Challenging the Judgment and Order, the appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 270/2012. An appeal from the jail was also preferred against the Judgment and the same has been registered as Criminal Appeal (J) No. 151/2012.

2. Heard Mr. M. Sarania, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 270/2012, and Mr. R.K. Dutta, learned Amicus Curiae appointed in Criminal Appeal (J) No. 151/2012. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional P.P., Assam.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that to settle the boundary dispute between the accused and the deceased Chandra Kanta Roy, both along with (P.W. 6), Shri. Ramesh Chandra Roy and Shri. Pratap Chandra Roy went to place of occurrence and while they were measuring the boundary an altercation took place between the accused and Chandra Kanta Roy (deceased). The accused snatched away the hoe from the hands of Chandra Kanta Roy and inflicted blows on the deceased causing his death. FIR being lodged by Shri. Diben Roy, uncle of the deceased, Golakganj P.S. case No. 34/2005 under Section 302 IPC was registered. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of witnesses, drew the sketch map of the site and held inquest on the dead body. The dead body was sent to Dhubri Civil Hospital for post-mortem examination. The hoe used in commission of offence was seized at the instance of the accused. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC was submitted against the accused. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed for trial to the Court of Sessions and then it was transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge for disposal.

4. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Section 302 IPC and claim to the trial.

5. Altogether 13 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Thereafter, statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he denied all the allegations levelled against him and pleaded that he is innocent. He, however, declined to adduce any defence evidence.

6. Shri. Ramesh Chandra Roy (P.W. 6) and Shri. Pratap Chandra Roy (P.W. 11) are the two eye-witnesses. Shri Ramesh Chandra Roy (P.W. 6), in his evidence stated that on the date of occurrence, at about 8.30 A.M., Chandra Kanta Roy (deceased) called him to demarcate his land. (P.W. 11) Shri Pratap Chandra Roy also accompanied them for demarcation of the boundary. P.W. 6 deposed that there was a boundary dispute between the accused and the deceased and while P.W. 6 was measuring the boundary with the help of a rope, the accused as well as the deceased showed their boundary. At that moment, an altercation took place between the accused Sushil Roy and the deceased regarding the boundary. Out of anger, the accused snatched away the hoe which Chandra Kanta Roy was holding and gave a blow in the neck of Chandra, who fell down on the ground. Thereafter, the accused again assaulted Chandra Kanta Roy in his shoulder with the hoe. Out of fear P.W. 6 and P.W. 11 Shri. Pratap Chandra Roy fled away. Later, he came to know that Chandra Kanta Roy died on the spot.

7. In the cross examination he stated that there was a dispute in the western boundary of the deceased. At the time of incident, many other persons were working in the neighbouring lands but they did not turn up at the time of altercation between both the parties.

8. It appears from this evidence that the accused was unarmed. This witness cou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document