Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1181 (GAU)

Ganesh Bora v. State of Assam

2012-10-04

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, C.R.SARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 7.6.2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in Sessions Case No. 63 (NL)/ 2006. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and accordingly sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default suffer imprisonment for another period of two months. We have heard Ms. K. Devi, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.6.2012 at about 10 P.M., the appellant had killed his wife namely, Smt. Lakhimai Bora (hereinafter called the deceased), in their bed room by inflicting blows with a knife. Shri Putukon Bora, elder brother of the appellant lodged an FIR with the Police, on 16.6.2006, which was registered as North Lakhimpur P.S. Case No. 373/2006, under section 302 IPC. During the investigation, Police visited the place of occurrence, took the appellant, who was detained by the villagers, into custody, caused inquest through Executive Magistrate, forwarded the dead body for post mortem examination, examined the witnesses, seized the incriminating knife from the place of occurrence vide seizure list (Exhibit No. 2). At the close of the investigation, Police submitted charge sheet under section 302 IPC against the appellant. 3. The offence being exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge, framed charge under section 302 IPC, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty. In order to prove their case, prosecution examined eight witnesses including the Medical Officer (PW7) and the Investigating Officer (PW8). At the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused person was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. During his examination, under section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant admitted that he had killed his wife by inflicting cut blows with a knife and that he had handed over the knife to the Police. The appellant declined to adduce defence evidence. 4. Ms. K. Devi, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant, has submitted that there is no direct evidence against the appellant and as such the impugned conviction and sentence cannot be maintained, for want of sufficient reliable and substantive evidence. 5. Mr. The appellant declined to adduce defence evidence. 4. Ms. K. Devi, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant, has submitted that there is no direct evidence against the appellant and as such the impugned conviction and sentence cannot be maintained, for want of sufficient reliable and substantive evidence. 5. Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, supporting the impugned conviction and sentence has submitted that there is sufficient cogent and reliable evidence regarding involvement of the appellant and that PW4 i.e. the mother of the appellant, who used to live with the appellant and the deceased, stated that hearing hue and cry inside the bedroom of the appellant, she called the villagers, from the verandah of the house and found the deceased lying dead inside the room. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor referring to the said evidence of PW4 has submitted that her evidence aforesaid remained undemolished. It is also submitted that the other prosecution witnesses i.e. PW1 and PW2 who rushed to the place of occurrence immediately after the incident, also found the dead body inside the room and that the appellant was apprehended by them. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that in view of the above evidence coupled with the admission of the appellant, it has been clearly established that none other than the appellant had caused the death of the deceased and as such the learned Trial Judge has not committed any error, requiring interference with the impugned judgment and order. 6. It is undisputed fact that the deceased and the appellant used to live in the same house along with their two children. Smt Bogi Bora (P W4), i.e. the mother of the appellant also used to stay in the said house. PW4, who was a star witness in this case, stated that in the afternoon of the fateful day, the said couple picked up a quarrel and at about 10-11 P.M., she heard hue and cry inside the bedroom of the said couple. According to this witness, hearing the said hue and cry, she went out to the verandah and called the neighbours. She further stated that, on being called by her, the villagers arrived there and the dead body of the deceased was found lying in their room. According to this witness, hearing the said hue and cry, she went out to the verandah and called the neighbours. She further stated that, on being called by her, the villagers arrived there and the dead body of the deceased was found lying in their room. She denied the suggestion, put to her on behalf of the defence, that hearing hue and cry, she rushed to the house of her eldest son, Nabin Bora, and that she did not see the dead body of her daughter in law. Though this witness was cross-examined on behalf of the defence, her evidence aforesaid remained undemolished. 7. Sri Putukan Bora, who lodged the FIR, deposed as PW1. He is the elder brother of the appellant. He has exhibited the FIR, lodged by him, as Exhibit No. 1. In the FIR aforesaid, it has been clearly mentioned that the appellant had caused the death of the deceased by inflicting blows with a knife. Supporting the contention made in the FIR aforesaid, PW 1 stated that on 15/6/2005, at about 10 P.M., hearing hue and cry in the house of the appellant, he had informed the village headman and the VDP Secretary. He further stated that he, along with Sri Tankeswar Bora (PW2), the VDP Secretary, visited the place of occurrence and found the dead body of the deceased lying dead with cut injury inside the bedroom. He further stated that the appellant was detained by the people, who had assembled there and that he had confessed that he caused the death. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of the defence. He denied the suggestion that his mother (PW4) did not tell him that the accused had cut the deceased. From the above, it appears that his witness corroborated the evidence, given by PW4 aforesaid. Though the defence cross-examined PW1, his evidence regarding the appellant involvement of remained undemolished. 8. Sri Tankeswar Bora, deposing as PW2, stated that, on being informed by PW1, he rushed to the house of the appellant and found the dead body of the deceased lying with injuries in the bedroom. He further stated that, on being asked by him, the appellant had confessed that he had killed his wife with a knife. This witness further stated that the appellant was detained and handed over to the Police. He has exhibited the seizure list as Exhibit 2 and his signature thereon. He further stated that, on being asked by him, the appellant had confessed that he had killed his wife with a knife. This witness further stated that the appellant was detained and handed over to the Police. He has exhibited the seizure list as Exhibit 2 and his signature thereon. He also exhibited the seized knife as material Exhibit No. "Ka". He denied the suggestion, put to him, that the appellant did not confess his guilt. The evidence of this witness also remained undemolished. 9. PW3, Shri Jeevan Bora is the father of the deceased. He was informed about the incident by PW1 and PW2. He visited the Police Station and saw the dead body of his daughter, when the same was taken for post mortem examination. 10. Sri Kamal Dutta and Sri Jugen Pegu, who deposed as PW5 and PW6 respectively came to know about the incident from others and that they had no personal knowledge about the same. 11. From the above discussed evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4, it is found that the appellant and the deceased used to live in their house as husband and wife and on the fateful night, when they were living together therein, a hue and cry was heard, followed by finding of the dead body of the deceased in injured condition, in their bedroom. As stated by PW1 and PW2, the appellant was found in his house i.e. place of occurrence and on being asked by the said witnesses as well as the villagers, he had confessed that he caused the death of his wife by inflicting blow with a knife. It is also found that the appellant was apprehended by the villagers and he was handed over to the Police. 12. The Investigating Officer, who deposed as PW8, clearly stated that he arrived at the place of occurrence on 16.6.2006 and found the dead body of the deceased lying with a cut injury on her neck. He has exhibited the inquest report as Exhibit 7. The said exhibit No. 7 reveals that a cut injury was found on the neck of the deceased. The Investigating Officer further stated that a knife was seized by him, on being led by the appellant. He has exhibited the seizure list as Exhibit No. 2 and the seized knife as Material Exhibit No. "A". 13. The said exhibit No. 7 reveals that a cut injury was found on the neck of the deceased. The Investigating Officer further stated that a knife was seized by him, on being led by the appellant. He has exhibited the seizure list as Exhibit No. 2 and the seized knife as Material Exhibit No. "A". 13. PW2 supporting the evidence of PW7 stated that the said knife was seized by the Police in his presence. From the above, it is found that there is no dispute that the dead body of the deceased was found with injury on the neck in their bedroom and the weapon of assault i.e. Material Exhibit was seized by the Police. The accused person was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. He clearly, without any compulsion, admitted that he had killed his wife with a knife and that handed over the knife to the Police used by him in causing the death of his wife. The seizure of the said incriminating weapon from the appellant and his admission aforesaid forcefully supports the prosecution version. Both PW1 and PW2 stated that the appellant had confessed his guilt immediately after the incident. PW1, is the brother of the appellant and PW2 is an independent witness. There is nothing on record to show that the said witnesses were either bias or inimical to the appellant. There is no material on record to indicate that they had any adverse interest to falsely implicate the appellant. In fact there is nothing about their credibility. Therefore, the witnesses being reliable and trust worthy, their evidence regarding extra-judicial confession is found to be acceptable. 14. From the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4, it has been clearly established that the appellant had picked up a quarrel with his wife inside their bedroom as a result of which there was hue and cry. The mother of the appellant (PW4) after hearing the said hue and cry called the villagers and they found the dead body of the deceased with injuries inside the bedroom. Both PW1 and PW2 stated that they saw cut injury on the neck of the deceased. According to the mother of the appellant, during the day time also the said couple had a quarrel. Therefore, the said quarrel appear to be the root cause of the occurrence aforesaid. 15. Both PW1 and PW2 stated that they saw cut injury on the neck of the deceased. According to the mother of the appellant, during the day time also the said couple had a quarrel. Therefore, the said quarrel appear to be the root cause of the occurrence aforesaid. 15. We have already discussed that PW1 and PW2 had no adverse interest against the appellant. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 regarding involvement of the appellant is fortified by the evidence of PW4 who is the mother of the appellant. The record does not reveal anything to show that the said matter had any reason to falsely implicate his son. In view of the above, considering the evidence aforesaid, we find no difficulty in understanding that the appellant had caused the death of the deceased by inflicting cut injury on her neck. The circumstantial evidence, that the said couple were living in the same house at the time of the incident and that the dead body of the deceased was found lying in injured condition in their bedroom coupled with the fact that the appellant was also found therein, conclusively indicate that none other than the appellant had caused the death of the deceased. We have already noticed that the appellant, in his examination, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted that he had caused the death of the deceased by inflicting cut injury. 16. The Medical Officer (PW7) who performed the post mortem examination found the following:- More than half of the neck had been cut from the front side by sharp weapon thereby wind (trachea) and food pipe (oesophagus) cut off. Besides, large blood vessels were also cut. The Medical Officer opined that death was due to cerebral hypoxia as a result of injuries sustained. He has exhibited the post mortem report as Exhibit 3. From the said medical evidence, it found that a cut blow was inflicted on the vital part of the body i.e. neck. The said medical evidence, coupled with the above discussed evidence indicates that the appellant had inflicted the fatal blow. The nature of the injury, the part of the body on which the injury was inflicted (neck, which is a vital part) and the weapon used lead to the conclusion that the appellant had caused injury with an intention to cause the death of the deceased. The nature of the injury, the part of the body on which the injury was inflicted (neck, which is a vital part) and the weapon used lead to the conclusion that the appellant had caused injury with an intention to cause the death of the deceased. The said act, done by the appellant, does not fall under any of the exceptions prescribed by Section 304 IPC. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the appellant committed the offence of murder, which is an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Accordingly, we hold that the prosecution could establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned Sessions Judge committed no error by convicting and sentencing the appellant as indicated above. We find no merit in this appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed. The impugned conviction and sentence are upheld and affirmed. Before we part with this judgment, we appreciate the assistance rendered by Mrs. K. Devi, learned Amicus Curiae. We order that an amount of Rs. 5,000/- be paid to the learned Amicus Curiae as her remuneration, by the Assam State Legal Services Authority. Return the LCR.