Rumi Kumari Phukan DECISION
Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.
1. Present two appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.05.2017 passed in Sessions Case No. 131(S-S)/2012 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sivsagar convicting the present two accused/appellants Dignata Gogoi and Junumoni Gogoi u/s. 304 (II)/201/34 of the IPC and sentencing both of them u/s. 304(II)/34 IPC to RI for 7 (seven) years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each, in default RI for 6 (six) months. Further, their sentence with RI for 1 year each and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each u/s. 201/34 of the IPC, in default RI for 3 (three) months.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that one Md. Jamaruddin Ahmed, Secretary of the VDP, Nepali Basti lodged an FIR on 11.04.2012 to the effect that on 10.04.2012 in the evening about 7 pm they found one Birsa Gogoi @ Nabin Gogoi lying dead inside his house campus with a cut injury on his head. He and the local people along with the Gaonburah went to the place of occurrence and informed police. They along with police went inside the kitchen of the Manju Gogoi (mother of the deceased) and they saw some blood stain on the floor and wall of the kitchen and the same was seem to have washed away before arrival of police. The brother of the deceased i.e. Dignata Gogoi although admitted that he was in the house of Manju Gogoi but denied to have any knowledge as to how the occurrence took place. Suspecting that mother of the deceased Manju Gogoi, his brother Diganta Gogoi and his wife Junumoni Gogoi were involved, the FIR was filed.
3. On the basis of the FIR Halwating PS Case No. 14/12 u/s. 302/34 of IPC was registered and police investigated the case. The necessary witnesses were examined by police u/s. 161 of Cr.P.C. and recovered a piece of bamboo as well as machete from the place of occurrence and it was seized. At the conclusion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the two accused persons namely Dignata Gogoi and Junumoni Gogoi u/s. 302/34 of IPC. The accused persons faced the trial and denied the charge that was framed u/s. 302/201/34 IPC.
4. To substantiate the charge prosecution 9 witnesses and the defence examined none. Plea of defence is of total denial. The statement of accused person was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they have denied all the allegation.
5. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court found and held the accused persons guilty and convicted them as aforesaid. Being aggrieved with such conviction and sentence, the present two appeals have been preferred by them. As both the appeals relates to the same judgment so, they are taken together and disposed of by this common order.
6. Heard Mr. MK Das, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the appellants as well as Mr. S. Islam ........