Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 600 (GAU)

Mangra Anand Chewasi v. State of Assam

2007-09-07

AFTAB H.SAIKIA, R.B.MISRA

body2007
JUDGMENT Aftab Hussain Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. R. AH, learned Amicus Curiae. Also heard Mr. K.C. Mahanta, learned P.P., Assam representing the State. 2. The appellant herein faced the criminal trial for commission of an offence under Section 302 IPC relatable to killing of his own brother-in-law Mangra Sahu Karmakar (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). 3. On the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 18.9.2000 by P.W. 1, Sri Sukram Sahu Karmakar, the brother of the deceased with Margherita Police Station alleging that on 17.09.2000 at around 8 O'clock in the night, his brother, the deceased while returning home along with his wife Anga Sukram Sahu, the appellant dealt a cut blow on the neck of his brother with a sharp cutting weapon on the road in front of the house of the P.W. 3, Smti Mangri Surgon Hans thereby causing his death, the Police started investigation and charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant to face the trial under the abovementioned Section. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tinsukia during trial in Sessions Case No. 3 (M) 2001 examined as many as 8 witnesses including P.W. 2, Smti Angasukhram Karmakar the sole eye witness, P. W. 7, Dr. Ritu Raj Chaliha who conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased and P.W. 8, S.I. Khagen Changmai, Investigating Officer (for short 'the I.O.') and having closely appreciated the testimony of those witnesses, the learned Judge found the appellant guilty of Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo further R.I. for 3 months by rendering the impugned judgment and order dated 25.9.2001. 5. Having critically analyzed the testimony of the witnesses particularly the P. W.2, P. W.3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 including the Doctor, P.W. 7 and also having extensively heard the arguments so advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties including the learned Amicus Curiae, it is found that the deposition of P.W. 2, being the solitary eye witness of the incident and in whose presence her husband deceased was killed by the appellant, appears to be credible, reliable and trustworthy. In her deposition, P.W. 2 categorically testified that while she along with her husband were proceeding towards their home having enjoyed the Bishwakarma Puja on the day of occurrence, the appellant, being armed with the dao, came towards them and gave dao blow on the neck of her husband. She was very explicit in deposing that the appellant gave two dao blows on her husband's neck. According to her, the incident took place on the road and after sustaining injuries the deceased ran towards the house of P.W. 3 to save his life and there on the courtyard he fell down immediately and then she rushed to the house of P.W. 1, the brother of the deceased/her brother-in-law and reported him about the incident. P.W. 1 came to the courtyard of P.W. 3 with his sister-in-law and stayed near the dead body for the whole night till the morning. On the following day the Police came and conducted the inquest over the dead body. She stated that the appellant fled away from the place of occurrence after the occurrence. In cross, she reiterated her deposition made in chief and stated that they had good relation with the appellant prior to the alleged occurrence and she did not know the reason behind the killing of her husband. She also testified that an electric light was burning at the time of occurrence at the road. 6. Deposition of P.W. 3 corroborated the testimony of P.W. 2 to the extent that the deceased rushed towards P.W. 3 s house in order to save him from the sustained injuries and fell down on the courtyard of her house. This witness deposed that on the day of Bishwakarma Puja while she was sleeping in her house, her daughter Mariam woke up her seeing a man falling down in their courtyard. She saw one man lying near the courtyard. She recognized the person to be Mangra Sahu Karmakar (deceased). She also saw the wife of the deceased near the deceased. Later on she came to know that the appellant caused the injury on the deceased. She deposed that she saw cut injury on the neck of the deceased. In cross, she emphatically stated that she saw two cut injuries on the right side of the neck of the deceased. 7. Later on she came to know that the appellant caused the injury on the deceased. She deposed that she saw cut injury on the neck of the deceased. In cross, she emphatically stated that she saw two cut injuries on the right side of the neck of the deceased. 7. P.W. 4, Sri Bishnu Munda also deposed that on the night of Bishwakarma Puja, P.W. 1 came and reported him that the dead body of the deceased was lying in the courtyard of P.W. 3. He came to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the deceased with two cut injuries on the right side of the neck of the deceased. The wife of the deceased, P.W. 2 reported him that the accused killed her husband. 8. P.W. 5 also in his deposition told that when he came to the courtyard of P.W. 3 after hearing people raising hue and cry, he saw the dead body of the deceased lying on the courtyard of P.W. 3 and also saw one cut injury over the neck of the deceased. 9. Now let us examine meticulously the medical evidence of P.W. 7 the Doctor who in his evidence deposed that having performed the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased, he found the following injuries: Injury: An incised wound over the left side of neck measuring 8 x 4 c.m. and cutting the first cervical vertebrae. An incised would wound over left side of the neck in the lower third measuring 6 x 3 c.m and cutting seventh cervical vertebrae. The Doctor opined that death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries which were ante mortem being caused by sharp heavy cutting weapon and were homicidal in nature. 10. P.W. 8 the 1.0. deposed that on 18.9.2000, having been entrusted with the investigation of the case, he came to the place of occurrence with the Executive Magistrate, Ms. Reena Mech who conducted the inquest of the dead body of the deceased and then dead body of the deceased was sent to Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh for post mortem. He also deposed that on the same day at about 2.45 p.m. the accused/appellant surrendered before the Police Station and then he was arrested. After arrest, the appellant disclosed before the 1.0. He also deposed that on the same day at about 2.45 p.m. the accused/appellant surrendered before the Police Station and then he was arrested. After arrest, the appellant disclosed before the 1.0. that he would show the weapon used by him and accordingly he was taken to the place of occurrence and a dao was recovered on being led by him and the same was seized and exhibited as Ext. 7. 11. We have also gone through the statements of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. where he denied all the allegations. 12. From the testimony of the witnesses as indicated above, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant was involved in the killing of his brother-in-law as well as the husband of his own sister, P.W. 2. There are no convincing or compelling circumstances to disbelieve the evidence so adduced by the prosecution witnesses particularly the P.W. 2 whose testimony inspires confidence. 13. The submission of Mr. R. Ali, the learned Amicus Curiae to the effect that since there was no light at the time of commission of offence, the appellant could not be recognized by P.W. 2, does not find approval of this Court due to the sole reason that the appellant was the own brother of P.W. 2 and that apart she also clearly stated that at the time of occurrence an electric light was glowing on the road. 14. In view of the above, we have no convincing materials on record to disbelieve the testimony of the witnesses particularly P.W. 2 and accordingly we are in full agreement with the finding so recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Tinsukia in convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section302 IPC. 15. The Apex Court, in a recent case of Seeman, Veeranam v. State, by Inspector of Police, 2005 CriLJ 2618 delving up the scope of related and sole witness, in paragraph 4, ruled as follows: (4) It is now well settled that the evidence of witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is a related witness or the sole witness, or both, if otherwise the same is found credible. The witness could be a relative but that does not mean to reject his statement in totality. The witness could be a relative but that does not mean to reject his statement in totality. In such a case, it is the paramount duty of the court to be more careful in the matter of scrutiny of evidence of the interested witness, and if, on such scrutiny it is found that the evidence on record of such interested sole witness is worth credence, the same would not be discarded merely on the ground that the witness is an interested witness. Caution is to be applied by the Court while scrutinizing the evidence of the interested sole witness. The prosecution's non-production of one independent witness who has been named in the FIR by itself cannot be taken to be a circumstances to discredit the evidence of the interested witness and disbelieve the prosecution case It is well settled that it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the evidence which is required to be judged by the court to place credence on the statement. 16. Having considered the entire evidence on record and also having inspired by the legal authority of Seeman's case (supra), we uphold the conviction of the appellant. 17. In the result, this appeal stands dismissed. LCR be send down immediately. Before parting with the case record, we would like to put on record our appreciation to Mr. R. AH, learned Amicus Curiae for rendering his valuable assistance and help in arriving at the aforesaid decision and accordingly we order that he is entitled to get his professional fees which is quantified at Rs. 3000/-. Appeal dismissed