High Court
Case Details
CRL.A(J) 4/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.D.AGARWAL THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.R.PATHAK
Legal Reasoning
The appellant herein stands convicted under Section 302 IPC vide impugned judgme nt dated 20.11.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur-Tezpur in Se ssions Case No. 46 of 2004. After convicting the appellant for the offence of mu rder he has been sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life and also to pay fine of Rs.5000/- (Five Thousand) with default stipulation of further rigorous impr isonment for 3(three) months. Being aggrieved with the conviction and sentence t he accused has filed this appeal from jail. Heard Ms. M Buzarbaruah, Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. BJ Dutt 2. a, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Also perused the evidence and rec ord proferred both by the prosecution and the accused. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 19.10.2003 at about 11 am wh ile the deceased was inflating pump in his bicycle in the shop of PW-4 the appel lant suddenly appeared at the scene and dealt two dao blows on the neck of the d eceased. The incident was immediately reported to the police over telephone and within six hours written FIR was also lodged by the son of the deceased. It is a lso the prosecution case that soon after the incident the accused surrendered in the police station with a dao. 4. After the charge sheet the appellant was tried for the offence of murder . To establish the offence of murder the prosecution examined altogether 14 witn esses including the autopsy doctor and the I.O. PW-1 is the autopsy doctor; PW-4 is the bicycle shop owner; PW- 12 is the scribe of the FIR; PW-13 is the son of the deceased ; PW-14 is the I.O and the remaining witnesses are co-villagers. 5. The prosecution case rests upon the ocular testimony of PW-4. As mention ed earlier the incident took place in front of the cycle repairing shop of PW-4. This witness has corroborated the prosecution story that at the relevant time t he deceased had come to his shop for inflating tyres. The witness was pumping a nd the deceased was holding the pipe. Suddenly the accused came with a dao and a ssaulted at random on the neck of the deceased and fled away. In the cross-exami nation PW-4 has admitted that when the first dao blow was given he did not see t he face of the offender. However, he could clearly see the assailant when he dea lt the second blow on the deceased. It may also be mentioned here that the decea sed was well known to PW-4 and the incidence took place at about 11 am. Hence, t here was no difficulty in identifying the assailant. 7. Only one suggestion was given to PW-4 that the witness had taken a loan of Rs.20,000/- from the accused indicating that PW-4 must have given incriminati ng evidence against the accused for the said money transaction. However, the sug gestion is incomplete inasmuch as PW-4 was not given any suggestion that the acc used had demanded back his loan amount. Even for a moment it is presumed that th ere was enmity with PW-4 for non-refund of the loan amount the assailant/appella nt should have assaulted PW-4 instead of assaulting the deceased. Hence, the def ense suggestion is of no relevance. We do not find any other material or relevan t suggestion to PW-4 to take a view that this witness had falsely implicated t he appellant in the offence. 8. The offence of murder has been corroborated by the autopsy doctor. Durin g the post-mortem examination two sharp cut deep wounds were found on the neck o f the deceased. As per the testimony of PW-4 the wounds were inflicted with a da o. Taking into consideration the weapon and the place of wounds inflicted upon t he deceased we find no difficulty to hold that the assailant /appellant had defi nite intention to commit murder of the deceased. 9. The other independent witnesses have also corroborated the prosecution s tory that the incident took place in front of the shop of PW-4. Majority of the witnesses have spoken about holding of the inquest in their presence. PW-11 was also running a pan shop nearby. He also heard that the incident was committed by one Nabin Talukdar. Name of any other person is not surfacing in the record. The accused stated himself as DW-1 to make out the defense case that at the relevant time he was at home. According to the accused hearing the incident he visited the place of occurrence whereupon he was apprehended by police. Howe ver, no prosecution witness was given any suggestion in the cross-examination th at at the relevant time he was at home and working with DW-2. In his statement u /s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused did not take any plea that he was working at home al ong with DW-2. On the same analogy the testimony DW-2 has also been rightly reje cted by the trial court. 10. 11.
Decision
For the foregoing reasons we do not find any merit in the criminal appea l. Resultantly, it is dismissed. 12. In view of Section 357-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 we here by award compensation of Rs. 1 lakh (Rupees One Lac) to the family members of th e victim. The Government of Assam is directed to pay compensation amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- only to the family members of the victim. The Government shall deposi t the compensation amount in the Office of the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur -Tezpur within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the money the same shall be disbursed to the family me mbers of the deceased on proper identification and after obtaining proper receip t. 13. We appreciate the valuable assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Cur iae. Accordingly, the learned Amicus Curiae is entitle to one day’s hearing fees .