High Court
Case Details
Crl.A. 133/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE DR.(MRS) INDIRA SHAH JUDGMENT & ORDER This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 31-05-2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, in Sessions Case No. 117 (T)/2004 convi cting the appellants under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of for 3 1/2 years and also to pay fine of Rs.500 /- each in default further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months conviction for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. (ORAL)
Legal Reasoning
2]. I have heard Mr. J. Kataki, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as Ms. A. Begum, learned P.P., , appearing on behalf of the State of Assam. 3]. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23-04-2004, in the afternoon, Probin Deka (deceased) went to the house of Dhanbir. After half and hour, he wa s seen running out of the house of Dhanbir and he was chased by Dhanbir and the accused persons. He was assaulted by the accused persons in a paddy field by mea ns of lathi where he succumbed to his injuries. The FIR being lodged on the nex t morning, the officer-in-charge registered a case as Bordubi P.S. Case No. 27/2 004 under Section 302/34 IPC. On completion of investigation, charge sheet unde r Section 302/34 IPC was submitted against the accused appellants. 4]. The accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against t hem under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and claimed to be tried. 5]. All together 9 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Thereafter, t he statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Th ey denied that they assaulted the deceased and causing his death. In their stat ement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they stated that on the relevant day, the decea sed had attempted to outrage the modesty of the daughter of Dhanbir. Thereafter, they went to the house of the deceased to advise him not to visit their house. No defence witness was adduced by the accused appellants. 6] PW.9, Dr. Hemanta Kumar Mahanta, performed the post-mortem examinati on on the dead body of Prabin Deka (deceased) on 25-04-2004 at Assam Medical Col lege Hospital, Dibrugarh and his findings are as follows:- (cid:28)External Injuries:- A lacerated would of size 6 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep was found on the oc (i) ciput. (ii) p were found on the lower part of the occipital area. (iii) A lacerated wound of size 4 cm x I cm x bone deep was found on the right side of the occiput 6 cm away from the mid line. A lacerated wound of size 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the right frontal a (iv) rea 3 cm from the mid line was found and it was found vertically placed. (v) An abrasion of size 3 cm x 1 cm and 2 cm x 1 cm on the right side of the back chest. Cranium and Spinal Canal: - Skull: - A depressed comminuted fracture on the fron tal bone of size 4 cm x 1 cm was found underneath the injury No. (iv). Membrane: - Subdural haemorrhage was present on right side of the brain. Brain: - Brain was congested. Laceration measuring 3 cm x 1 cm of the frontal area unde rneath the injury No. (IV). All the organs were healthy (cid:29) 7]. In the opinion of the doctor, he opined that the death was caused due to coma resulting from the head injury. All injuries were ante mortem, which might have been caused by heavy blunt object and homicidal in nature. He further, opi A lacerated would of size 4 cm x o.5 cm and 3 cm x o.5 cm. both bone dee ned that injury no.4 is sufficient to cause death of a person in ordinary course of nature, since it had resulted in fracture of skull and laceration of the bra in. In cross-examination, the doctor stated that for the injuries found on the deceased it was difficult to survive even with any specialised treatment. It is also difficult to sustain aforesaid injuries during an accidental fail in a drai n. PW-1, Sri Bhaba Kanta Deka, saw in the afternoon of the incident that hi 8]. s deceased son entered into the house of Dhanbir, who is the elder brother of th e accused persons. After some time, he heard hue and cry in the house of Dhanbir . He saw the deceased running away and he was chased by Dhanbir and the accused persons. The accused persons came to his house and enquired about his son Prab in (deceased) and when they did not find him in the house, they left the place. Next morning, Prabin was found dead inside the tea plantation area. PW.1 saw in jury on the head of the deceased. He further stated that the deceased had devel oped affairs with the daughter of Dhanbir and the accused and their brother did not like this since he (deceased) insisted to marry the daughter of Dhanbir. PW. 1 lodged the FIR. PW.2 Smti Sabitri Deka, in her deposition, stated that she hea rd the quarrel in between the accused persons and the deceased. She also stated that deceased instead of entering his house, went towards the house of his uncl e. She saw, the accused persons following Prabin (deceased) and the whole night, her Son Probin did not return home. Next morning at 5 A.M., she heard the sound of accused telling his brother Dhanbir that he had finished Prabin. Thereafter , she went out in search of Prabin but she was informed by the police at about 8 A.M. that Prabin was killed. 9]. PW-3, Sri Bireswar Borah deposed that Maju (accused) led the pol ice officer inside a tea plantation wherefrom the dead body of Prabin was recove red. PW.4, Sri Kartik Deka, deposed that while returning from Makum market on th e day of occurrence, he heard the deceased Prabin altercating with few persons n ear Rajgarh Tea Estate. He also witnessed the recovery of the dead body from the garden area. The inquest of the dead body was held in his presence. PW.5, Sri Ramfal Gorh deposed that he was present when the dead body of the deceased was r ecovered. P.W.6, Sri Uruddin Ahmed witnessed the inquest on the dead body. PW.7, Smti Radha Bostom, is the niece of the accused persons. She deposed that the de ceased used to come to their house after consuming alcohol. She alleged that dec eased attempted to outrage her modesty and then, she fled away and went to the h ouse of the accused Kartik Bostom. Next day, she came to know that deceased was killed. She was declared hostile by the prosecution. In her statement, she adm itted before Investigating Officer that when her modesty was being outraged by t he deceased, she raised alarm. On hearing alarm, her uncle Maju came to her hous e. However, she denied that her uncle chased the deceased Prabin. In her cross- examination by defence, she admitted that deceased was forcing her to marry him. 10]. PW-8, is the Investigating Officer, S.I, Sri Cheniram Dutta. He visited the place of occurrence. On requisition, the Executive Magistrate, F.A. Alam vi sited the place of occurrence and held inquest on the dead body. He drew the sk etch map on the site of the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of wi tnesses. According to him, he could not arrest the accused persons as they were found absconding. After arresting the accused persons on next day, the accused Maju led him to recover one two feet long club, which was thrown by him at a dis tance of about 25 feet from the place of occurrence. The accused Maju disclosed that the said club was used for assaulting the deceased. PW.9, the club was bloo d stained. 11]. The learned trial Court, after analysing the evidence on record, observe d that there were motive for assault of the deceased since the deceased was insi sting Radha to marry him. This is unrebutted evidence that the deceased visited the house of Dhanbir to meet Radha immediately before the crime. The witness exa mined by the prosecution stated that the accused persons chased the deceased. Th e accused persons visited the house of the informant in search of the deceased. The chain of circumstances clearly established the hypothesis guilt of the accus ed. The accused persons also in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. admitt ed that the deceased attempted to outrage modesty of Radha and thereafter, they went to the house of the informant to enquire as to why such act was done by the deceased. Therefore, the circumstance appearing on their behalf directly or ind irectly have been admitted by them. Learned counsel for the appellants has submi tted that the accused persons have already suffered the imprisonment and therefo re, the judgment passed by the trial Court may not be interfered.
Decision
12]. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I find that there is no merit in t he case. Accordingly, the judgment dated 31-05-2006 passed by the learned Sessio ns Judge, Tinsukia, in Sessions Case No. 117 (T)/2004 convicting the appellants under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imp risonment of for 3 1/2 years and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- each in default fu rther rigorous imprisonment for 2 months conviction for the offence under Sectio n 304 Part II of the IPC, is upheld. The appeal is dismissed. Send down the LC R to the learned Court below with a copy of this order. JUDGE