GUWAHATI, India, Nov. 30 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Oct. 30:

1. Heard Mr. D. K. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel and Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, representing the State.

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgement dated 20/09/2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon, in Sessions case No. 57/2016, by which the appellant has been convicted under section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

3. The prosecution case in brief, is that an FIR dated 15/01/2016 was submitted by the Prosecution Witness- 2 (PW-2), who was the brother-in-law of the deceased. The FIR stated that around 4-30 p.m. on 14/01/2016, when PW-2's sisterin-law (deceased) asked her distant relative (nephew), i.e. the appellant to bring the cows from the grazing field, he hacked her to death with a dao suddenly and without uttering a word. The appellant was thereafter apprehended with the help of the local people and the Police were informed. Pursuant to the FIR dated 15/01/2016, Morigaon PS case No. 17/2016 under section 302 IPC was registered.

4. The Investigating Officer (IO) i.e. PW-7 started investigation and after completion of the investigation, the second I.O, i.e. PW-8, submitted a charge sheet, having found a prima facie case under section 302 IPC against the appellant.

5. The learned Trial Court thereafter framed a charge under section 302 IPC against the appellant for having killed the deceased with a dao, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The learned Trial Court examined 8(eight) prosecution witnesses and 2 (two) Court witnesses during trial. The appellant was thereafter examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, in which he gave a blanket denial of the evidence that had been adduced against him. The learned Trial Court thereafter came to a finding that the appellant had killed the deceased with a dao, that had been seized by the Police a day after the incident and convicted the appellant under section 302 IPC.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no link between the dao that has been seized on 15/01/2016 with the death of the deceased on 14/01/2016, inasmuch as, the seized dao had not been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination. In this respect, he has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Yusuf Vs. State of West Bengal [(2011) 11 SCC 754], wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court that in the case of circumstantial evidence, not sending the weapon used in the crime for chemical analysis is fatal, for the reason that the circumstantial evidence may not lead to the only irresistible conclusion that the appellant was the perpetrator of the crime and none else, and that in the absence of any report of a Serologist as to the presence of human blood in the weapon may make the conviction of the accused unsustainable.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=tuqye3PhFs%2BBDn75ghiOpByt3auyFesFG7AHn7693Ir68aZNU8jsnxmptNLc8lkO&caseno=Crl.A./16/2024&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010286922023&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.