Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 359 (GAU)

Bijoy Bakti v. State of Assam

2004-05-21

I.A.ANSARI, P.G.AGARWAL

body2004
JUDGMENT P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Ms. R.D. Mazumdar, learned amicus curiae, appearing for the appellant, and Mr. F.H. Laskar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. The appellant Bijoy Bakti stands convicted of the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC in Sessions Case No. 90/1998 on the allegation that on 23.7.1998 he killed his wife Lakshi inside his house. The trial Court sentenced the accused-appellant to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.100 in default to further imprisonment for one month. 3. Gopai Bakti (PW-1) is the informant of the case and is the uncle of the accused-appellant. Premodhar Dutta (PW-3) is the Gaon Burah of the area and Kartik Bakti (PW-5) is a co-villager. All the three witnesses have deposed that on going to the house of the accused-appellant they found his wife Lakshi lying dead with cut injuries on her person. The autopsy was conducted by Dr. Mukul Sarmah, (PW-2) who found as follows: INJURIES : (1) One sharp cutting wound of size 2½" x 3" x 3" over the forehead. Clotted blood present. (2) Another sharp cutting wound of size 2½" x ½" x 1" on the throat. No Ligature mark found on the neck. 4. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained. The medical evidence has not been challenged and considering the oral evidence on record, the trial Court rightly held this case to be homicide. 5. In the present case, we find that there is no eye witness to the occurrence, i.e., none of the witnesses saw the deceased being assaulted or killed. The trial Court relied on the circumstantial evidence and the extra-judicial confession of the accused-appellant. So far the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are concerned, we find that the accused-appellant used to live with his wife and minor children in the house. The children were too minor and as a matter of fact one was infant. The wife of the accused-appellant was found dead with cut injuries. There was blood all along. The accused was the only other male member in the house and he was last seen with the deceased. The explanation must come from the accused as to how his wife got killed. Moreover, the weapon of assault was found in the house of the accused wherefrom it was seized. There was blood all along. The accused was the only other male member in the house and he was last seen with the deceased. The explanation must come from the accused as to how his wife got killed. Moreover, the weapon of assault was found in the house of the accused wherefrom it was seized. The post-crime conduct of the accused-appellant is also relevant. After killing the wife, the accused approached PW-5, made extra-judicial confession and sought PW-5's help in burying the dead body. Thereafter, the accused went to his uncle PW-1 and informed about the incident and also sought his help. However, Gopal Bakti along with Gaon Burah went to the police station and informed the matter to the police. The post-crime conduct of the accused, which is relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, lends credence to the submission made by the accused-appellant, the husband of the victim, who had committed the crime. 6. Further, both PWs 1 and 5 have stated that soon after the occurrence, the accused went to them and the accused made extra-judicial confession. There was no cross-examination of PW-5 and no reason has been shown as to why PW-5 could not be relied upon. General principles governing the question of extra-judicial confession are more or less well-settled. Extra-judicial confession is a substantive evidence and it can be relied upon to base the conviction. The Court may, however, seek corroboration to satisfy itself. In the case of Baldev v. State of Haryana, reported in (1990) 4 SCC 524 it has been held that extra-judicial confession can be relied upon for conviction. The value of the evidence depends upon the veracity of the witnesses. In this case, PW-1 is the own uncle of the accused-appellant and PW-5 is a co-villager. Hence, after the incident the accused went to them, made extra-judicial confession and sought their help in disposing of the dead body. These witnesses are found to be reliable and they had no animosity with the accused and there was no other reason on their part to make out a false case of extra-judicial confession. Moreover, following the confession the dead body was found inside the house of the accused-appellant along with the weapon of assault. 7. We, therefore, hold that the extra-judicial confession available on record can be safely relied upon. 8. Moreover, following the confession the dead body was found inside the house of the accused-appellant along with the weapon of assault. 7. We, therefore, hold that the extra-judicial confession available on record can be safely relied upon. 8. The learned amicus curiae has submitted that in this case there was no intention to kill and the evidence on record show that as per the accused's confession he had killed his wife being unable to bear her behaviour or conduct. Marital dispute cannot be a ground to kill other spouse and this cannot be treated as a mitigating circumstance. 9. Considering the nature and number of injuries and the weapon of assault used, the intention to kill is apparent. 10. In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 11. Send down the LCRs. Appeal dismissed.