1. This jail appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.4.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 22(T) of 1992 convicting the accused appellant Under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him there under to imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000, in default to further 2 years' Rl.
2. We have heard learned counsel Mrs A Devi, appointed as amicus curiae in this case as well as Mr B Banerjee, learned public prosecutor. Assam. We have also considered the records of the case.
3. On 27.5.1991 an FIR was lodged in Tinsukia Police Station to the effect that on 26.5.1991 at about 5 AM in the morning when the informant Suk Ram Bhumiz (PW 2). the elder brother of the accused Mangal Bhumij came home, he found his younger brother's wife Nilomoni Bhumij lying dead with injuries caused by dao on her neck. His younger brother Mangal Bhurniz on being asked replied that he himself killed his wife by hacking her wrth a dao. On receipt of this FIR the police registered a case, visited the place of occurrence, sent the dead body for post mortem examination after holding inquest, examined witnesses, seized the dao in question by seizure list Ext.2 on being led by the accused and got the confessional statement of the accused recorded by a Magistrate. On completion of investigation the police charge sheeted the accused Under Section 302 IPC. The learned Magistrate committed the case under the said section of law to the Court of Session.
4. In the Court of Session a charge Under Section 302 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the trial the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses of whom PW 5 and PW 9 were declared hostile. The statement of the accused was recorded Under Section 313 CrPC. The accused pleaded innocence and declined to adduce any evidence. On consideration of the evidence on record and after hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused t as stated above, hence this appeal.
5. The learned Sessions Judge elaborately dealt with the evidence on record which we have also scrutinized. PW 7 Dr N Sonowal performed the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries .
(A) Incised wounds four Nos. in the front and right side of the neck from above downward -
(1) 3 x 2 cm size x muscle deep
(2) 6 x 2 cm x vertebrae deep
(3) 6 x 2 cm x vertebrae deep
(4) 8 x 3 cm x 7th cervical vertebrae cut
Nos. 2, 3 and 4 injuries cut the skin muscles, vessels nerves, traches oesophangus and vertebrae.
(B) incise wound 4 x 3 cm x bone deep over the right scapula, skin, muscles and scapula were cut.
The doctor opined that all the injuries were ante mortem in the nature and the death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the incised wounds on the neck and that the injuries were homicidal in nature and caused by sharp cutting weapon.
6. The evidence of the doctor PW 7 coupled with other evidences on record leaves no room for doubt that the deceased was done to death at the time and place as alleged by the prosecution. The pertinent question is whether it was the accused who caused the death of the deceased. On this point the prosecution relied upon the confessional statement of the accused and also his extra Judicial confession allegedly made before PW 3.
7. The evidence of Smti Sushila Bhumiz (PW 1), a near relative of the accused is that she went to the tank to collect water and while she was going to the tank she found the deceased lying dead near the tank and she informed her nephew Suk Ram Bhumiz (PW 2), the elder brother of the accused. PW 2 informed the VDP Secretary Puspa Patra (PW 3) at whose instance he lodged the FIR. According to PW 3, on being informed by PW 2 he went to the house of the accused and found his wife lying dead. When he asked the accused about the occurrence he confessed before him that he killed his wife with a hatchet, raised the chadar and shaved the cut marks he-inflicted on her. PW 8 the Judicial Magistrate. Tinsukla recorded the confession of the accused complying with the requirements Under Section 164 CrPC. Mrs A Devi, learned amicus curiae could not point out any infirmity in the confessional statement recorded by the Magistrate. We have carefully examined the confessional statement made by the accused and found that the requirements Under Section 164 CrPC were substantially complied with. We have also found that the confessional statement has satisfied the double tests, namely (1) it was voluntary and (2) it is true. The confessional statement also finds support as regards the
weapon of the offence, the nature of injury caused and other attending circumstances. We agree with the learned Sessions Judge that there is no scope to hold that the confession made by the accused is not voluntary or not true particularly in view of the extra judicial confession made by him earlier before PW 3 to whom the accused not only confessed to have killed his wife but also had pointed out to him the cut marks he inflicted on his wife. The accused inflicted as many as four blows with hatchet on the neck of the deceased, a vital part of the human body. We have found that the learned Sessions Judge rightly convicted the accused Under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life which is the minimum sentence that can be awarded in a conviction Under Section 302 IPC. It was, however, not necessary to impose on him also the fine of Rs. 5000, in default to further two year's Rl. We set aside this portion of the sentence.
8. This Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction of the accused appellant Under Section 302 IPC with the modification in the sentence as stated above.
9. We order that a fee of Rs. 2500 be paid to Smti A Devi, learned amicus curiae.