Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 507 (GAU)

Sanjib Tanti v. State of Assam

2007-08-06

AFTAB H.SAIKIA, H.N.SARMA

body2007
JUDGMENT Aftab H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Roshid, learned Amicus Curiae and also Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned P.P., Assam. 2. This appeal from jail has been carried from the judgment and order dated 13.8.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 7(T)/98 whereby the accused-appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, further imprisonment for three months, for committing the offence of murder by beheading three persons namely, Birsa Bhumij, Montu Lohar and Upen Tanti and he was also sentenced to R.I. for five years having been convicted under Section 307 IPC for injuring three other persons namely, Sakirtun Tanti, Manik Bhumij and Smt. Amrit Kishan, ordering to run both the sentences concurrently. 3. Before delving upon in details the issues raised in the challenge of conviction and sentence so handed down by the learned Judge to the accused/appellant, it would be convenient to notice the facts of the case in a nutshell. 4. An FIR was lodged by one Tankeswar Phukan, Manager of Chandmari Tea Estate with the Tinsukia Police Station on 15.3.96 alleging that on the previous night i.e. on 14.3.96 around 9 P.M., the appellant cut three persons namely, Birsa Bhumij, Montu Lohar and Upen Tanti with a dao and thereby caused their death. The appellant also inflicted injuries upon three other persons namely Sartik, Manik Bhumji and Sri Amrit Kishan. 5. On the basis of the FIR abovementioned, the police started investigation and registered a case under Sections 302/307/324/326 IPC. On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the appellant under Sections 302/307/ 324/326 IPC. 6. The learned Magistrate, 1st Class, Tinsukia on receipt of such charge sheet so submitted by the police committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia as the case was being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. 7. The learned Judge on appearance of the appellant and also on perusal of the materials available on record including the police papers and also upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, framed charge against the appellant under Sections 302/307/326 IPC. The entire charges were read over to the accused-appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. The entire charges were read over to the accused-appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses including two Government Officials namely P.W.-15 Dr. R. Chaliha who conducted autopsy on the three dead bodies of the persons named above-named and P.W.-l6 Sri Phatik Ch. Gogoi, the Investigating Officer (for short, 'the I.O.") while defence examined none. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 9. The learned Sessions Judge having closely appreciated the material evidence on record including the thorough examination of the documents and materials exhibited before him as well as upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the prosecution proved its case against the appellant as regards the killing of three per sons named above and injuring other three persons as already indicated above by using dao material Exhibit No. 1 (seizure list) beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced as indicated above. 10. Assailing the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Judge, Tinsukia so indicated herein above, Mr. Roshid, learned Amicus Curiae has strenuously argued that it was unmistakably proved by the testimony of most of the witnesses that the appellant was suffering from mental disorder at the time of commission of the alleged offence and since the appellant was a man of unsound mind as per evidence of the witnesses so examined by the prosecution, he ought to have been given the benefit of protection under Section 84 IPC. 11. To bolster up his submission the learned Amicus Curiae has drawn our attention to the evidence of P.W. 1 Sri Prakash Kishan, son of one of the injured Smt. Amrita Kishan, P.W.-6 Haidar Ali, P.W.-7, Rajen Gowala, P.W.-8 Manik Bhumij one of the injured on being attacked by the appellant, P.W.-9 Subal Das who were categorical in their deposition that the appellant was mad earlier and the day of occurrence his condition was very grave. 12. In view of the above submissions, we have scrupulously analysed the evidence of those witnesses named above and it is found as follows: 13. P.W-1 in cross-examination stated that at that time, the appellant was mentally disturbed. He became mad and murdered all the three persons and cut three others. 12. In view of the above submissions, we have scrupulously analysed the evidence of those witnesses named above and it is found as follows: 13. P.W-1 in cross-examination stated that at that time, the appellant was mentally disturbed. He became mad and murdered all the three persons and cut three others. Against the query of the Court, this witness also testified that he believed that he was mad on that day because on that day he was signing rhymes of God during the day time and on that right he cut all those three persons. 14. P.W.-6 Haidar Ali also, narrated the same story of madness. In cross-examination he stated that the appellant was uttering "Krishna" "Krishna" at that time and behaved abnormally. 15. P.W-7 Rajen Gowala in cross-examination stated that mental condition of the accused was grave on the day of occurrence and on that day he could not even recognize anyone. 16. At the same breath, P.W.-8 Manik Bhumji, one of the injured, in his cross-examination stated specifically that he had no dispute with the appellant. The courtyard of the accused and his was common. He had been mad from before but before the incident the appellant had not killed anyone and he did not know why the accused had done so. 17. P.W.-9, Subal Das also stated the same story claiming in chief that he heard that one man had gone mad. 18. Mr. Roshid, learned Amicus Curiae has strongly submitted that all the witnesses established and have expressed that at the time of offence the appellant was in mental insanity of unsoundness of mind and also proved that accused was in such a state off mind and accordingly, Mr. Roshid has emphasized that the appellant is entitled to get the protection under Section 84 I.P.C. Having considered the critical testimony of the above mentioned witnesses, it appears that the appellant at the time of commission of offence was suffering from mental illness as such, he is entitled to-get the protection under Section 84 I.P.C. 19. Roshid has emphasized that the appellant is entitled to get the protection under Section 84 I.P.C. Having considered the critical testimony of the above mentioned witnesses, it appears that the appellant at the time of commission of offence was suffering from mental illness as such, he is entitled to-get the protection under Section 84 I.P.C. 19. The Apex Court in a case of KjkihyabKai Chhangabhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1964 SC 1563 in paragraph 9, dealing with the scope of provision of Section 84 I.P.C., held that- (9) When a plea of legal insanity is set up, the court has to consider whether at the time of commission of the offence the accused, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The crucial point of time for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused is the time of when the offence was committed. Whether the accused was in such a state of mind as to be entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code can only be established from the circumstances which preceded; attended and followed the crime. In the case in hand, on our discreet analysis of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, we have found that the appellant before commission of offence as well as at the time of commission of offence and after commission of offence has acted in such a manner which prompts us to hold without any hesitation that the appellant was suffering from mental illness/sickness. 20. In view of the what has been stated and discussed above, we are of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to get the protection under Section 84 I.P.C. which provides as under- 84. Act of a person of unsound mind-Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what h either wrong or contrary to law. Accordingly, we ordered that the appellant be acquitted forthwith, if he is not required in any other criminal case. In the result the appeal is allowed. Before parting with the judgment, we would like to put on record our appreciation to Mr. Accordingly, we ordered that the appellant be acquitted forthwith, if he is not required in any other criminal case. In the result the appeal is allowed. Before parting with the judgment, we would like to put on record our appreciation to Mr. A. Roshid, the learned Amicus Curiae for the help and assistance rendered to arrive at a decision in this appeal aforesaid and accordingly, it is ordered that he is entitled to get his professional fee which is quantified at Rs. 3,000/-. Send down the LCR forthwith. Appeal allowed.