Md.Abdul Sukkur v. Sessions Judge, Karimganj

undergo R.I for three months has been challenged in this appeal.

2. The prosecution case in brief, is that on 23.10.2004 at about 9 AM whi le the victim Md.Muzammil Ali was inside his house , the accused persons, nam ely, Abdul Malik, Abdul Noor, Abdul Sukkur, Mustt. Monowara Begum , Abdul Hamid, Mustt Samsunnessa and Abdul Mannan (since deceased) wrongfully entered into his house armed with dao and sticks. The accused Sukur inflicted dao blows on the h ead of Md.Muzammil Ali and Abdul Mannan assaulted him on his back by means of a dao. The accused Monowara Begum inflicted cut injuries on the back of the victi m. Other accused persons assaulted him by means of stick. Wife of the victim att empted to obstruct the accused persons and she raised alarm, whereby the neighbo urs came and seeing them the accused persons fled away. The victim was shifted t o Karimganj Civil Hospital for treatment, thereafter to Silchar Medical College for better treatment. Brother of the victim Md.Mobarak Ali lodged FIR at Kari mganj Police Station and a case was registered being Karimganj P.S Case No. 387/ 04 u/s 147/148/448/326/307 IPC. On conclusion of the investigation police submi tted charge sheet against the accused persons u/s 147/148/448/326/307 IPC. During the trial the charges u/s 147/148/448/326/307 IPC were framed aga 3. inst the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be trie d . To substantiate the charges the prosecution examined all together ten wi 4. tnesses. The statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein they denied the allegations levelled against them and stated that they are innoc ent. Two witnesses were examined as defence witnesses. The accused Md.Abdul No or took the plea of alibi . He stated in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that at the time of occurrence he was away from the place of occurrence in the S tate of Meghalaya. Similarly Md.Sukur also pleaded that he was not present at the relevant time at the place of occurrence. PW 5 Dr. Mrinal Talukdar, Asstt. Professor of Surgery, Silchar Medical C 5. ollege and hospital examined the victim on 23.10.2004 and his findings are as f ollows: (cid:28) Injuries Patient was unconscious, bleeding from her ear and nose(+).

1. Two incised wounds over the back side of the trunk . Right side-one 1 5 x 3 x 1 cm and other - 12 x 3 x 1 cm .

2. Two incised wound over head medial and left side of head- one - 18 x 2 x 1 cm and other - 8 x 5 x 1 cm. CT scan of brain ( No. 1797/26-10-04). Diagnosis-1. Non hemorrhagic contusion in right frontal lobe. 2. multiple aeroceles in subdural and interhemispheric. 3. Comminuted depressed fracture of right frontal bone with fragments of bone im pacted in frontal lobe parenchigma. X-Ray of (1) skull and (2) right shoulder (MN 10161/25-10-04)- Linear and depre ssed fracture of right frontal and parietal bone. Type of weapon was sharp, nature of injury was grievous(both clinically and rad io logically) Age of injury was fresh. (cid:29) In the opinion of the doctor the injuries were fresh, caused by sharp weapon and grievous in nature. The victim was initially examined by Dr.F. Karim, PW 6 who was in the

6. Civil Hospital on the same date and his findings are as follows: (cid:28) Patient was unconscious with convulsion at the time of examination. Injuries 1. Sharp cut injury on right parietal region 5 (cid:29) anterior posterior 1 cm wide, bo ne deep with cut bone. 2. Sharp cut injury on back of right shoulder, two in number, each 5 (cid:29) x ‰ (cid:28) X 1 (cid:29) According to PW 6 there was only one injury over the head on the right parietal region, whereas PW 5 stated that there were two incised wound over the head medial and left side of head. However, PW 5 stated that two injuries were found on the same spot. PW 1. Md.Mobarak Ali is the informant and brother of the victim. He de 7. posed that he was in the adjacent house while the occurrence took place. The acc used persons entered into the house of the victim armed with dao , lathi and dag ger. The accused Md. Sukkur gave dao blows on the head of the victim whereup on the victim fell down on the ground. Thereafter, he was assaulted by Monowara and other accused persons. He further alleged that the accused Noor asked to ki ll the victim and other accused persons fled away. The victim was shifted to Kar imganj Civil Hospital where his wounds were stitched . Thereafter, he was refer red to Silchar Medical College for treatment. PW 1 lodged FIR, subsequently the victim was removed to Gauhati Medical College and Hospital for treatment where h e had undergone treatment for a month. In cross-examination, PW 1 admitted that there were numbers of cases pending between the parties. The cases were disposed of on compromise. However, the present case could not be disposed of. He, furt her, stated that he did not enter into the room where the incident took place. However, he stated that he witnessed the occurrence from the adjacent room. PW 2 Muzammil Ali is the victim. He deposed that while he was cleaning 8. bricks inside his house, the accused persons entered into his house armed wit h lethal weapon. The accused Md. Abdul Sukkur inflicted injury on his head b y means of a dagger. Other accused persons also gave dao blow and assaulted hi m with sticks. Wife of his brother and his daughter were present inside the hou se when the occurrence took place. When they raised alarm the accused persons f led away. He could not say who shifted him to the hospital. He was treated at Si lchar Medical College and also at Gauhati Medical College and Hospital. In his cross-examination he admitted that the house of Mubarak is at a distance of ‰ K .M. from his house. However, Mubarak came to his house in the morning.

9. PW 3 Mustt Reshma Begum, daughter of the victim and P.W 4 Mustt. Sarifa Khatun, his wife corroborating the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2, have deposed in the similar line.

10. PW 7 Md Sabir Uddin Ahmed and PW 8 Mustt.Joy Goon Begum turned hostile to the prosecution. PW 7 was cross examined by the defence and he has stated th at he did not know any incident of assault. PW 8 has stated that she cannot say how the victim sustained injuries. PW 9 and PW 10 are the Investigating Officers .

11. Md.Ataur Rahman , DW 1 deposed that both the parties are the inhabitant of the same house. On the day of occurrence, DW 1 heard hue and cry inside the house of the victim . He saw the victim lying on the ground in injured conditi on. He saw Abdul Mannan fleeing away from the place of occurrence. According to him the accused Abdul Mannan was the person who assaulted the victim. He did not see other accused persons. In cross examination he admitted that the accused Ab dul Mannan is already dead.

12. DW 2 Md.Tafajjal Hoque, deposed that on the date of occurrence he saw Ab dul Mannan and Muzammil Ali(victim) quarrelling in front of their house. Abdul Mannan raised objection for construction of the house by Muzammil. Thereafte r, Abdul Mannan assaulted the victim by means of a brick and fled away. The vict im who adduced his evidence as PW 2 has categorically stated that the accused Su kur Ali inflicted dao blows causing injuries on his head. The accused Abdul Ma nnan (since deceased) also inflicted injuries on the victim. His evidence is cor roborated by the medical officer. The fact that the victim was assaulted and he sustained injuries as described by the doctor, has not been disputed by the defe nce. Rather the defence witnesses have corroborated the fact that the victim sus tained the injuries described. The simple case of defence is that it was the acc used Abdul Mannan who inflicted the injuries. There is no reason to disbelieve t he evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses that the accused Sukur Ali infl icted grievous hurt on the victim. The learned trial court has elaborately discu ssed the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as the defence side and com e to the conclusion that the accused Sukur Ali committed the offence u/s 307 as well as 448 IPC read with Section 147 IPC. The other accused persons committed t he offence u/s 147 and 448 IPC. There is no need to interfere with the findings of trial Court.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the accused Suku r Ali is inside the Bar since 2010. He has already suffered imprisonment for two years and six months, the accused and the victim are the neighbours and belon g to same family. The accused persons were not convicted earlier in any case. C onsidering all, the sentence of R.I. for 10 years u/s 307 IPC is reduced to th e period already undergone by the accused appellant Md. Abdul Sukkur. However, p ayment of fine of Rs.1,000/- is enhanced to Rs.7,000/-, which on realisation, b e given to the victim . The sentence u/s 147/448 IPC are maintained.