GUWAHATI, India, June 6 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on May 6:

1. The instant appeal has been preferred from jail against a judgment and order dated 06.12.2019 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Udalguri in Sessions Case No. 13/2019 (GR Case No. 943/2018), whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and fine of Rs.10,000/-.

2. The said case involves the killing of the father by the appellant for which he has been convicted and sentenced vide the impugned judgment and order.

3. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 16.09.2018 by PW-1. In the said Ejahar, it was alleged that on the previous day i.e., 15.09.2018 at around 5.30 a.m., an altercation took place between his brother-in-law (appellant) and father-in-law (deceased) over the issue of a bicycle in which the appellant, in a fit of rage hit on the head of the deceased with a piece of firewood which was lying nearby causing grievous injury causing the death of the deceased.

4. After registration of the Ejahar, the investigation had begun in which the appellant was arrested, statements of the witnesses were examined, the body was taken for post-mortem, Sketch Map was prepared and after completion of the formalities, the Charge Sheet was laid. Based on the above, charge was framed under Section 302 IPC [corresponding to Section 103 of the BNS] by the learned trial court and on its denial the trial had begun in which the prosecution had adduced evidence through 11 nos. of prosecution witnesses.

5. PW-1 is the informant, who is the son-in-law of the deceased and the brother-in-law of the appellant. He had deposed that he heard from the neighbour regarding the incident and accordingly had gone to the Gaonburah, who had called the police. He had also deposed of a confession made by the appellant before the police. The FIR was proved as Ext. 1. In his crossexamination he had clarified that he had not seen how the deceased had received the injuries and that his house was about half kilometer away from the place of occurrence. He had also deposed about the presence of the wife and mother-in-law in the house of the deceased at the time of the occurrence.

6. PW-2 is a resident of the locality who had also similarly deposed of getting the information about the incident from his wife. He had accordingly gone to the place of occurrence where police was already there and the appellant had made a confession before the police. He is a witness to the seizure by which the firewood used in the assault was seized as Material Ext. 1 and the seizure list was proved as Ext. 2. In the cross-examination, he had clarified of not witnessing as to how the deceased had received the injuries.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=U%2BbhtlrLe2adAHN8Tz%2F1d3lhtE%2FbcMJl0zLMrjTvyBSJQ1cFNPDGpXWzEplU%2BfYn&caseno=CRL.A(J)/76/2020&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010160432020&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.