High Court
Case Details
Crl.A. 137/2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE DR. (MRS.) JUSTICE INDIRA SHAH JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. I.A. Hazarika, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard M This is an appeal against the judgment dated 04.07.2012 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in Sessions Case No. 81(K) of 2009 convicting the appellant under Section 304(A) IPC sentencing him thereby to unde rgo SI for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fin e further SI for 2 months. [2] r. B.J. Dutta, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. [3] The tragic death of Rashmita Borah, a student of class VI of Hatigaon Li ttle Flower School, occurred on 31.05.2005. On the date of the incident she atte nded the school and allegedly she was beaten up by her Math teacher Pranjit Das, as she did not complete her homework. After sometime she became unconscious and fell down. The school authority informed the parents of the victim that she had suffered headache and need immediate action. Jagat Ch. Borah P.W.1, father of t he victim, on receipt of the information immediately rushed to the school and fo und his daughter lying senseless. He took her to Dispur Poly Clinic in an auto-r ikshaw. The doctor examined her and advice him to take her immediately to GNRC h ospital as it may be a case of severe convulsion and internal brain hemorrhage. She was shifted to GNRC but unfortunately on the same day at 9.45 P.M. she died. She was cremated on 01.06.2005 and then many students of the schools visited th e house of the informant and they disclosed the informant that the victim was su bjected to physical punishment by their math teacher Pranjit Das (appellant). [4] P.W.1 lodged the FIR and in the FIR he alleged that the school authority along with the accused Pranjit Das visited his house and Pranjit Das confessed before the school authority that he inflicted physical torture on the head and e ar of the victim for which begged apology from P.W.1. On the basis of the FIR lo dged by P.W.1, Dispur P.S. Case No. 700 of 2005 under Sections 120(B)/ 304 IPC w as registered. During the investigation the dead body of the deceased was exhume d from the cremation ground. Inquest on the dead body was held by the Executive Magistrate and it was subjected to postmortem examination. [5] eceased on 04.06.2009 found the following injuries: ’’i) 10cm x 8cn abrasion with contusion over front of chest middle part starting Doctor Gunajit Das P.W.13 who held the autopsy on the dead body of the d from below suprasternal notch. ii) 7cm x 6cm abrasion over left sides of the front of chest 2.5 cm below nipple . iii) Contusion of size 7cm x 4cm over the back of right ear continuing upto the back part of the ear. iv) 6cm x 5cm contusion over back of left ear (mastoid region). v) 1cm x 1cm sized contusion in the back of left leg 28 cm above in lateral mall eolus. vi) Whole of the occipital, part of the posterior aspect of right temporal, whol e of the left temporal and posterior aspect of left parietal scalp found contuse d. vii) Contusion of the inferior surface of left frontal lobe of brain. viii) Contusion over the right parietal lobe of brain. ix) Contusion over inferior surface of right temporal lobe of brain. x) Contusion over inferior surface of left temporal lobe of brain. xi) Cerebellum shows contusion in it’s inferior surfaces all over intracerebral hemorrhage present on both sides. Blood clot found present in the lateral ventricle on both sides, which are antem ortem. (cid:29) [6] In the opinion of doctor death was due to comma resulting from the head injuries sustained as described. All the injuries were antemortem, caused by blu nt impact and homicidal in nature. According to the doctor serious jerky moment in head could cause the head injuries with blunt impact by a heavy substance. On ly injury number 6 was the external injury. Other injuries were internal. He, ho wever, denied that any of the injuries were caused during exhumation. [7] P.W.1, Jagat Ch. Borah, the father of the deceased, stated that on being informed that his daughter had fallen ill, he rushed to the school and found hi s daughter lying unconscious on bench. When he asked the school authority what t reatment has been provided, they could not give him satisfactory reply and then he brought his daughter in a rickshaw to Dispur Poly Clinic. On the advice of t he doctor he shifted her to GNRC hospital and at GNRC CT Scan was done and she w as admitted in the ICU. However, she died at around 9.45 PM. After cremating his daughter when he returned home, he found many friends of his daughter in his ho use. He came to know from the students that his daughter was tortured by the mat h teacher Pranjit Das. On 01.06.2005 the school administrator as well as Pranjit Das visited his house and the administrator assured him that they will enquire the matter and will punish the guilty person. In their presence the accused Pran jit Das confessed that he committed torture on the victim. On 03.06.2005 he came to know from published newspaper that the school authority have declared to enq uire the matter and they have stated that nobody in school was involved in the i ncident. Thereafter, he lodged the FIR. He denied that his daughter was sufferin g from any illness. However, he admitted that sometime his daughter was unable t o attend school due to illness. [8] P.W.2 Syed Mudassir Yasin, P.W.3 Wasifa Zerin, P.W. 4 Reshma Mir, P.W.5 Reliza Jaman, all were classmates of the victim, reading in the same school. The y stated that the accused Pranjit Das was there a Math teacher and on the date o f incident which occurred during the 3rd period of math class, the math teacher asked them whether they have done their home works. As no one had completed thei r homework, they were asked by their teacher to standup. Thereafter the accused came to the victim and asked her why she did not complete her home work. The acc used then squeezed her ear. They also stated that the victim was all right durin g the 4th period but during the tiffin break she felt ill and became unconscious . She tried to get up but she fell down. She was taken away by the class teacher from the class. Next day they came to know that the victim had expired. [9] P.W.7 Rashi Das has stated that in the 6th period the victim felt ill, S he vomited and thereafter taken back to her house. He also stated that the math teacher in the math class squeezed her ear as she had not completed her homework . [10] P.W.8, Sister Arokiamary, P.W.9, Sister Aguest Niangnobi, P.W.10, Ms. Be ronica, P.W.11, Ms. Farhana Islam are the Headmistress and Assistant Headmistres s, all are the teachers of Little Flower School. P.W.8 stated that during 6th period on the date of the incident Sister A [11] guest Niangnobi (P.W.9) informed her that Rashmita Borah, a student of class 6, was suffering from headache and brought her to the office. She also informed her parents to come to school. P.W.9 Sister Aguest Niangnobi stated that Ms. Farhana Islam (P.W.11) inf [12] ormed her that Rashimita Borah was sick and she immediately informed the Head Mi stress. P.W.10 was informed by the Head Mistress that Rashmita was suffering fro m illness. P.W.10 saw her lying on a bench in the Head Mistress’ room. P.W.10 ch ecked the pulse of the victim and found her restless. On being asked Rashmita to ld that she was suffering acute headache. According to the P.W.10 she went to ne arby H.M. Hospital to bring a doctor, but she did not find any doctor at the rel evant time and when she came back she found the father of the victim had already arrived. P.W.11 deposed in the same line. [13] Dead body of the victim was exhumed in the present of P.W.12 Janat Ali a nd P.W.6 Rajeswar Medhi. P.W.6 was present at the time of inquest on the dead bo dy. P.W.15 is the IO. He deposed that on the death of the victim on 02.06.20 [14] 05, there was ’Dharna’ in the school campus of Little Flower School at Hatigaon. On receipt of the information he made a GD Entry vide No. 19 dated 02.06.2005 a nd proceeded to Little Flower School. He came to know that Pranjit Das, one teac her of Little Flower School, assaulted the victim on her ear resulting which her death occurred at GNRC hospital. He, thereafter, went to the resident of the vi ctim and recorded the statement of the victim’s father. He seized the death cert ificate and documents relating to the treatment of the victim vide Ext-3. Next d ay, the FIR was lodged and then the dead body of the deceased was dug out from t he cremation ground in presence of the Executive Magistrate. According to him th e witnesses, i.e. the school students told him that the victim was quite all rig ht during the 5th period, thereafter, she fell ill and got injured by dashing on desk. According to the medical report, the death of the deceased was due to com ma resulting from the head injuries sustained by blunt impact. There is definite opinion of the doctor that the injuries were homicidal in nature. There is also evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 & P.W.7 that the accused, who was math t eacher, squeezed the ear of the victim and thereafter in the 5th period the vict im became unconscious, suffering from severe headache. [15] As it appears from the aforesaid evidence that the punishment was given by the accused to the victim as she failed to complete her home work. [16] Now whether the squeezing of ear would have endangered the life of child . Thickness of skull generally happens to 3 to 6 mm and it is thinnest as squamo us portion of temporal bone. Again skull is thinner in case of a female. Hence, the victim was a girl child and naturally it was thinner in her case. So even if the accused had no intention or knowledge that death may occurred, his negligen ce caused death of the victim. The accused has been rightly convicted under Sect ion 304(A) IPC and his conviction under aforesaid Section of law is hereby uphel d. [17] The learned Trial Court, Kamrup, rightly held that no conclusion can be drawn that the accused had any intention to cause death of the deceased. Accordi ng to the medical report the death occurred due to the injuries sustained by the victim. The accused inflicted for assault on the victim. The conviction of the accused therefore under Section 304(A) IPC is hereby upheld. [17] Considering the fact that the accused was a teacher and he inflicted pun ishment without any intention to cause any harm to the victim and it for his neg ligent unfortunate death occurred, the sentence of SI for 1 year is hereby deduc ed to SI for 3 months. However, the fine of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by the learned Trial Court shall remain the same. With this modification this appeal is dispose d of. [18] Return the LCR along with the copy of this judgment.