Criminal Appeal (J) No.116 of 2015. Case: Md. Jamor Ali Vs State of Assam. Guwahati High Court
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal (J) No.116 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ms. P. B. Bordoloi. Amicus Curiae, Adv. and For Respondent: Mr. D. Das, Addl. Public Prosecutor. |
| Judges | N. Chaudhury, J. |
| Issue | Indian Penal Code - Sections 447, 427, 302, 34 |
| Judgement Date | September 16, 2016 |
| Court | Guwahati High Court |
Order:
N. Chaudhury, J.
-
In this appeal against conviction the judgment and order dated 25.08.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri, in Sessions Case No.52(U)/2015 has been called in question. By that judgment the learned Sessions Judge convicted accused Jamor Ali under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.
-
In the aforesaid Sessions Case prosecution story is that one Musstt. Sahatun Nessa lodged an ejahar with the Officer-in-Charge of Rowta Police Station on 11.02.2015 informing that her husband was murdered by four accused persons including Jamor Ali by dealing blow on his head with an iron road. Rowta Police Station Case No.7/2015 under Sections 447/427/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against four persons and investigation started. After completion of investigation police submitted charge-sheet against accused Jamor Ali only and the other persons named in the ejahar were shown as witnesses for prosecution. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions by order dated 11.05.2015 and thereupon aforesaid Sessions Case No.52(U)/2015 came to be registered. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 447 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the sole accused. The particulars of charges having been read over and explained, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
-
In course of trial prosecution examined 16 witnesses and proved nine documents. Out of these witnesses, PW 1 and PW 2 claimed to have seen the occurrence. PW 1 was the informant. According to her, at around 8.30 p.m. on the date of occurrence she went to the rear side of her house for responding to call of nature when she saw the sole accused called her husband away. Her son Sahanur Ali (PW 2) followed his father and thereafter she also followed. The accused took her husband inside his house and then assaulted with crowbar. She saw the accused assaulting her husband. So did her son. The body of her husband was left near the door of the house of the accused. Even in course of cross-examination she remained steady about witnessing the incident.
-
PW 2, Md. Sahinoor Ali, was aged about 15 years as on the date of deposition. The learned Sessions Judge having been sure that the witness had capacity to apply mind and understanding allowed him to depose on oath...
To continue reading
Request your trial