Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 760 (GAU)

Sukram Ekka v. State of Assam

2009-10-30

BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA, RANJAN GOGOI

body2009
JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. The accused appellant having been convicted under Section 302, IPC with the sentence of RI for life and under Section 326, IPC with RI or 7 years and also with fine of Rs.1,000, in default, to undergo RI for another one month, he has preferred this appeal. Be it stated here that both the sentences are to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that one Shri Nabin Ekka (PW2) (sic) an FIR on 15.3.2001 with Pengeri Police Station to the effect that in the previous night at about 3. A.M. his father, i.e., the accused appellant inflicted injuries to his mother in her head with an axe causing instantaneous death. As per the FIR, his younger brother and sister also suffered grievous injuries and they were taken to Pengeri Tea Garden Hospital but the doctors there sent them to Longshowal hospital. However, the brother died on the way and the sister was underwent treatment there. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, the Police registered Pengeri PS case No. 12/2001 under Section302/326, IPC. After investigation, etc., the accused appellant was charged under Section 302/326, IPC and the case was committed to the court of session being exclusively triable by it. During trial, the prosecution examined 9(nine) witnesses. It will be appropriate to briefly refer to the statements made by the said witnesses during the trial. 4. PW1 is the doctor attached to Pengeri Tea Estate Hospital on 15.3.2001 when the injured persons were brought there. He in his deposition has testified the injuries sustained by the sister of the first informant (PW2). The injuries testified by him are as follows: (1) One deep cut injury over the maxillary area of left cheek measuring 3" x ½" x bone deep. (2) One deep cut injury over the left eye brow measuring 1½" x ¼" x ¼" Both the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapons. Bleeding 1+. Bleeding 1+. Means slight oozing of blood from the womb considering the serious condition of the injured I referred her to central hospital Longshowal for further necessary treatment. Ext. 1 is my report and Ext. 1(1) is my signature. 5. PW2 is the first informant and the son of the accused appellant. He in his deposition stated about the incident. Bleeding 1+. Means slight oozing of blood from the womb considering the serious condition of the injured I referred her to central hospital Longshowal for further necessary treatment. Ext. 1 is my report and Ext. 1(1) is my signature. 5. PW2 is the first informant and the son of the accused appellant. He in his deposition stated about the incident. He has stated about his visit to his father's place at the morning hours (3 A.M.) of the day of the incident. He found the door locked from inside and nobody replied on call. Thereafter, he went to the Police Station and reported the same. The police came and called his father. His father opened the door and came out from the house with an Apex in his hand. The PW2 entered the house and found his mother lying dead in a pool of blood. He also found his brother and sister lying near the dead body with injuries on their forehead and cheek. He took his brother and sister to Pengeri Tea Estate Hospital for treatment. However, his brother died on the way. The doctor referred the injured sister to Longshowal hospital for treatment. She was treated there. She also died after a month due to some illness. He also deposed about the seizure of the axe from the possession of the accused appellant of which he was a witness. 6. PW3 in his deposition has stated that at about 4 A.M. of the date of the incident, one Shri Azad, the son of accused appellant, came to his house and reported that his father had killed his mother. On receipt of the information, he came to the place of occurrence and found the door of the house locked from inside. He met some other labourers gathered in the house premises who reported that the accused appellant had killed his wife. Latter on, police came and called the accused appellant to open the door. Accordingly, the accused appellant opened the door and came out with an axe in his hand. 7. PW3 has also stated as to how the dead body of the wife of the accused appellant and his injured son and daughter were taken out from the house. He has also stated about taking injured to the hospital. 8. Accordingly, the accused appellant opened the door and came out with an axe in his hand. 7. PW3 has also stated as to how the dead body of the wife of the accused appellant and his injured son and daughter were taken out from the house. He has also stated about taking injured to the hospital. 8. PW4 in his deposition also stated about the incident on the day of occurrence at about 4 A.M. He had heard sound of breaking wall and beating in the house of the accused appellant. He then came out and found that door of the accused appellant's house was locked from inside. He suspected some foul play and went to the Police Station to report the incident. Thereafter, the police came and on their call, the accused appellant opened the door and came out with an axe in his hand. Like the other witnesses, this witness also saw the dead body of the lady and also found the son and daughter of the accused in injured condition. He further testified that the son of the accused appellant died on his way to hospital. This witness was also signatory to the seizure of the axe. 9. PW5 is also a neighbour of the accused appellant. This witness also came to the place of occurrence seeing the gathering of people in the house of the accused appellant and he witnessed the police taking out the dead body of the wife of the accused appellant. He also found that the son and daughter of the accused appellant were in injured condition and that the son succumbed to the injuries. 10. PW6 is the brother-in-law of the accused appellant. He in his deposition stated that the accused appellant had killed both the deceased on the fateful night. In the night of occurrence, he was at Digboi and latter on came to know about the incident. He in his deposition further stated about the killing of his sister by the accused appellant and inflicting injuries to his nephew and niece. 11. PW7 is the doctor who conducted the post mortem on the dead bodies. He in his deposition proved the post mortem report which, inter alia, reads as follows: External Appearance: A female dead body of about 40 years wearing a saree, a blouse and a petticoat. Eyes and mouth are closed. Natural orifices are healthy. 11. PW7 is the doctor who conducted the post mortem on the dead bodies. He in his deposition proved the post mortem report which, inter alia, reads as follows: External Appearance: A female dead body of about 40 years wearing a saree, a blouse and a petticoat. Eyes and mouth are closed. Natural orifices are healthy. Rigor mortis are present in both upper and lower limbs. Injuries: 1. An abrasion over the right forearm measuring 2 x 0.5 cms. 2. An abrasion over the middle of the back measuring 1 x 0.5 cms. 3. An abrasion over the left limber region measuring 1 x 0.5 cms. 4. An abrasion over the middle of the limber region measuring 1 x 0.5 cms. 5. A lacerated injury over the vertex of the scalp measuring 3 x 1 cms. 6. A lacerated injury over the left parietal region measuring 2 x 1 cms. 7. A lacerated injury over the left occipital region measuring 2 x 1 cms. In the thorax, the thoracic organs are congested and healthy. In the abdomen, abdominal organs are healthy. Stomach is healthy and contains liquid food. In the cranium and spinal canal, injuries to the scalp already described. In the skull, there is a depressed fracture over the vertex. Vertebra are healthy. Membranes are congested. Sub-arachnoid hemorrhage are present on both sides of the brain. Bain is congested. Opinion: In my opinion death is due to coma as a result of the injury to head described. Injuries are ante mortem being caused by heavy blunt object and are homicidal in nature. Time since death 24 to 36 hours. The sub-arachnoid hemorrhage described is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person. Ex. 2 is the post mortem report, 2(1) is my signature. Along with the dead body I have received Command Certificate, Forwarding Report, Inquest Report and Dead body challan. Ext. 3 is the Inquest report, Ext. 4 is the Forwarding report, Ext. 5 is the Command Certificate, Ext. 6 is the Dead body challan, Ext. 3(1), 4(1), 5(1) and 6(1) are my signature. A male dead body of about 5 years, wearing a sporting and a long pant, eyes and mouth are closed, natural orifices are healthy, rigor mortis is present in both upper and lower limbs. 1. 5 is the Command Certificate, Ext. 6 is the Dead body challan, Ext. 3(1), 4(1), 5(1) and 6(1) are my signature. A male dead body of about 5 years, wearing a sporting and a long pant, eyes and mouth are closed, natural orifices are healthy, rigor mortis is present in both upper and lower limbs. 1. A lacerated injury over the right frontal region measuring 4 x 1 cm 2. A lacerated injury about the left eye brow measuring 1 x 0.5 cm. In the thorax, the thoracic organs are congested and healthy. In the abdomen, abdominal organs are healthy. Stomach is healthy and contain altered blood. In the cranium and spinal canal, injuries to scalp already described. The entire frontal scalp is contused. A depressed fracture is present over the frontal bone with radiating fissure fracture of both the parietal bones. Vertebra are healthy. Brain is congested. Membranes are congested. Subdural hemorrhage is present over the entire brain. Opinion: in my opinion death is due to coma as a result of the injury to head described. The injuries are ante mortem being caused by blunt object and are homicidal in nature. Along with the dead body subdural hemorrhage described is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person. Along with the dead body I have received inquest report, Forwarding report, Command certificate and dead body challan. Ext. 7 is the post mortem report, 7(1) is my signature. Ext. 8 is the inquest report, 9 is the Forwarding Report, 10 is the dead body challan. Ext. 8(1), 9(1) and 10(1) are my signature. 12. PW8 and PW9 are the I.Os. While PW8 handled the case after completion of the investigation and submitted charge sheet against the accused appellant, the PW9 had conducted the investigation, during which he had recorded the statement of the witnesses and also seized the weapon of murder, i.e., the axe from the possession of the accused appellant (Ext. 12). 13. All the PWs were cross-examined by the defence but no contradictions extending any benefit to the accused appellant could be extracted. This position coupled with the statement of the accused appellant under Section 313, Cr.PC. has made the prosecution case full proof. In this connection, the answers given by the accused appellant to the question Nos. 12). 13. All the PWs were cross-examined by the defence but no contradictions extending any benefit to the accused appellant could be extracted. This position coupled with the statement of the accused appellant under Section 313, Cr.PC. has made the prosecution case full proof. In this connection, the answers given by the accused appellant to the question Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 8 along with the questions are quoted below: Q. 1: It is adduced in evidence against you that you injured your wife Bitni Ekka, son Debaru Ekka and daughter Pussy Ekka by hitting them with axe in the night of the occurrence and your wife and son succumbed to the injuries while your daughter Pussy Ekka was grievously injured. That PW No. 7 Dr. R. Kalita examined the bodies of your wife and son, and opined that they had succumbed to the injuries caused by you. Do you have anything to say in that regard? Arts: I have nothing to say. Q.6: PW9 Bimal malakar, the investigating police officer has adduced in evidence that taking the charge of investigation he came to your house and found the doors closed; that when he asked to open the door you opened a window' that through that window he went inside where he found you sitting with an axe in hand; that he found your wife's dead body and the two injured children lying, soaked in blood; and that when asked, you came out by opening the door. PW Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have also averred that asked by the police you with an axe in hand, came out by opening the door. Do you have anything to say? Ans: Police had asked me to open the doors, but, instead, I opened a window. After that, when the police asked again, I came out by opening the door. Bitni Ekka was, at that time, lying dead inside the house while the two children were in injured condition. Q.7: PW9, the investigating officer has averred in evidence that in presence of witnesses he recovered from you and seized the axe which you had used in committing the crime. PW Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have stated in evidence that the axe that he recovered from you and which was used in the crime. Do you have anything to say regarding the seized axe? PW Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have stated in evidence that the axe that he recovered from you and which was used in the crime. Do you have anything to say regarding the seized axe? Ans: Police seized an axe after recovering it from me. The seized axe is of my own house. Q.8: PW1 Dr. H.M. Deb has averred in evidence that he treated your daughter Pussy Ekka after you had injured her with axe and that he found two cut injuries caused by sharp weapon. What do you have to say? Ans: I don't have anything to say. 14. It is on the basis of the above evidence, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, has convicted the accused appellant under Section 302/326, IPC with the aforesaid sentence. It is in evidence overwhelmingly that the accused appellant was inside the house with his wife and children. There was none else. When the witnesses called him, he did not come out. He did not respond. It was only after the visit of the police, he had come out with the axe in his hand. 15. From the own conduct of the accused appellant duly proved by the statements made by the prosecution witnesses, there is no-doubt that it was the accused appellant, who committed the crime with the weapon in question. He had injured the deceased with the axe on the vital parts of their body and thereafter he remained inside the house with the axe keeping the door locked from inside. As stated above, he did not open the door when the witnesses called him to do so. It was only on arrival of the police he had opened the door and came out with the axe in his hand. In such circumstances, there cannot be any doubt that it was the accused appellant who had committed the offence. Going by the nature of injuries caused by the accused appellant, it cannot be said to be a case of causing accidental injuries but such injuries were caused with the intention to cause death of the deceased. 16. As noted above, the accused appellant also in his deposition under Section 313, Cr.PC. admitted the fact of committing the offence. He did not try to project any other case and answered the questions put to him supporting his guilt in respect of the charges brought against him. 17. 16. As noted above, the accused appellant also in his deposition under Section 313, Cr.PC. admitted the fact of committing the offence. He did not try to project any other case and answered the questions put to him supporting his guilt in respect of the charges brought against him. 17. It is in the above circumstances, the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, referred to above. 18. Mr. D.K. Chomal, learned amicus curiae referring to the evidence on record, argued for acquittal of the accused appellant. On the other hand, Mr. D. Das, leaned P.P., Assam, supporting the conviction and sentence made his submissions. We do not find any ground to accept the submissions made by Mr. Chomal, learned Amicus Curiae. We are of the firm view that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence does not warrant any interference. 19. In view of the above, this appeal stands dismissed. While appreciating the assistance rendered by Mr. Chomal, learned amicus curiae, we hereby order that he will be entitled to two days' fee @ Rs.2500 per day. 20. Let the LCR be sent down to the trial court along with the copy of this judgment. Appeal allowed.