On 2.9.1985, the special leave petition as regards Mahendra Nath Phukan was dismissed while numberice was issued in the petition as regards Anil Phukan.
the wife of the deceased went to PW6, Punaram Gogoi, and after telling him as to what had been told to her by Ajoy PW3, she requested him to accompany her to the place of occurrence.
561/85, was preferred by Mahendra Nath Phukan, and Anil Phukan, the third brother Jojneswar, however, did number file any special leave petition.
In brief, the prosecution case is that the appellant, Anil Phukan had borrowed a sum of Rs.
The autopsy revealed that the deceased had two incised injuries on the head besides one swelling and an injury on the inner part of his thigh.
We are, therefore, at this stage companycerned only with the criminal appeal by special leave, of Anil Phukan.
Mahendra had a crowbar while jojneswar had a crooked dao and Anil a kupi dao.
Ajoy PW3 pulled the deceased towards his house and implored the accused number to assault him.
450 from Trinayan Chandra Baruah, deceased and had executed two hand numberes Ex.
The distance of the house of the deceased from that of the appellant is about one furlong.
On reaching the place of occurrence, they found Trinayan lying on the spot with injuries on his person but he was still alive.
Indeed, companyviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye witness and there is numberrule of law or evidence which says to the companytrary provided the sole witness passes the test of reliability.
Pws Bijoy and Ajoy brought a bullock cart from Sabharam Bora PW7 and after lifting the body of Trinayan with some difficulty brought it to his house and kept it in the verandah.
On the same day, Mahendra was arrested at about 6.45 p.m. The other two brothers Anil and Jojneswar surrendered subsequently in the companyrt.
This case primarly hinges on the testimony of a single eye witness Ajoy PW3.
Subsequently, on 29.10.1985, special leave was granted to Anil Phukan and on 29.4.1986, he was also directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judl.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.11.1984 of the Gauhati High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
The I.O. prepared the sketch plan of the place of occurrence and sent the body for postmortem examination.
During the investigation, some weapons including an axe were seized from the house of Mahendra accused.
The first information report was lodged at Golaghat Police Station the next day in the afternoon at 12.30 p.m. by Surendra Nath Gogoi PW2.
However, he did number repay the amount, On 21.3.1976, the deceased accompanied by his nephew, Ajoy Baruah PW3, proceeded to the village of the appellant and as he was getting late, Ajoy Baruah PW3 carried with him a torch light.
So long as the single eye witness is a wholly reliable witness the companyrts have numberdifficulty in basing companyviction on his testimony alone.
On companying near the deceased and Ajoy PW3, Mahendra, who came first, gave a blow to Trinayan on his head with the crowbar, the other two brothers also allegedly assaulted the deceased thereafter.
8, promising to repay the amount on 21.3.1976.
A Division Bench of that companyrt vide judgment dated 6.11.1984 upheld the companyviction and sentence of all the three.
At the asking of his uncle, Ajoy PW3 ran away to his house and gave the information to the wife of the deceased PW5 Debayani Baruah, about the occurrence.
He also narrated the occurrence to PW4, Bijoy Baruah.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Anil appellant was present in the fields in front of his house and on being asked as to why he had number companye to return the money, he asked them to wait there and proceeded towards his house.
Magistrate, Golaghat, Assam.
11 of 1979.
7 and Ex.
Sunil Kumar Jain, P.D. Tyagi and Vijay Hansaria for the Appellant.
K. Nandy for the Respondent.
ANAND, J. Anil Phukan and his brothers Mahendra Phukan and Jojneswar Phukan were tried for an offence under Section 302/34 IPC for the murder of one Trinavan Chandra Baruah on 21.3.1976 at about 8 p.m. The learned Sessions Judge companyvicted all the three brothers for the said offence and sentenced each one of them to suffer imprisonment for life An appeal was preferred by all the three brothers against their companyviction and sentence in the Gauhati High Court.
Later on, when Anil did number return for some time, the deceased alongwith Ajoy PW3 proceeded towards the house of the appellant when they found all the three brothers companying towards them variously armed.
However, before any medical aid companyld be provided, the deceased succumbed to the injuries at night.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.
Ajoy PW3 apprehended some danger from the appellant and his brothers but his uncle told him that since they had done numberwrong, they need number be afraid of any assault.
757 of 1985.
The prosecution in all examined 12 witnesses to companynect the accused with the crime.
A Special Leave Petition Crl.
