Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 488 (GAU)

Bharat Ch. Boro v. State of Assam

2012-04-19

P.K.SAIKIA

body2012
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.6.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge(F.T.C.), Darrang, Mangaldoi in Sessions Case No.45(DMFT)2006 convicting the accused appellant of offence under Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to rigorous imprisonment for another three months for the offence aforesaid. 2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the accused appellant preferred this jail appeal. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.4.2006, one Smti. Pamila Boro lodged an F.I.R. with Officer-in-Charge, Mangaldoi Police Station alleging that in the evening of previous day i.e. 14.4.2006 at about 8 P.M, her son Bharat Ch. Boro, who is the accused appellant herein, assaulted her as well as her husband by means of a lathi as a result of which her husband died instantaneously. 4. On receipt of written ejahar from the aforesaid informant, the police registered a case and ordered investigation. During the course of investigation, the I/O visited the place of occurrence, drew up a sketch map thereof, conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased, sent the dead body to hospital for postmortem examination, seized the lathi allegedly used in crime in question and on completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet against the accused person under Section 302 I.P.C. and forwarded him to the Court to stand his trial there. 5. Since the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate, before whom the charge sheet was so laid, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Darrang at Mangaldoi for disposal in accordance with law. Learned Sessions Judge, on receipt of the case on commitment, transferred the case to the file of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) for disposal. On receipt of the case on transfer, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge heard the parties, perused the materials on record and framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused person and the charge, so framed, on being read over and explained to the accused person, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. During trial, the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses including the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer. The statement of the accused person under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded. 6. During trial, the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses including the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer. The statement of the accused person under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded. The accused set up by admitting to have killed his father administering one blow but contended that he had no intention to kill his father, which he did on the hit of moment. He, however, on being required, did not adduce any evidence. Learned trial Court, on conclusion of the trial and after hearing the counsel for the parties, held the accused guilty of offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC, convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to punishment as aforesaid. 7. It is that judgment which has been assailed in this appeal. I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and also the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that in view of the materials on record, he is not going to challenge the judgment of the trial Court in so far as conviction of accused of offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC is concerned. He, however, urges this Court to reduce the sentence, considering the facts and circumstances, in which the offence in question was committed. 8. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, keeping in view materials on record. I have found from record that there was a quarrel between the accused and his wife on the fateful evening for which the deceased and his wife tried to intervene the warring couples. In that process, the accused hit his father on his head for which he succumbed to the injuries at the place of occurrence itself. 9. From the materials on record, it appears that the accused hit his father in a hit of moment for which he unfortunately died then and there. In view of materials on record, I am of the opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court as far as conviction of accused of offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC is concerned. 10. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I have found reason to interfere with the sentence, imposed upon the accused person. I am, therefore, in agreement with the learned Amicus Curiae as far as reduction of sentence imposed upon the accused appellant is concerned. 11. 10. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I have found reason to interfere with the sentence, imposed upon the accused person. I am, therefore, in agreement with the learned Amicus Curiae as far as reduction of sentence imposed upon the accused appellant is concerned. 11. Accordingly, the sentence imposed upon the accused appellant is reduced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC. 12. With the above modifications, this jail appeal is disposed of. 13. Return the L.C.R. to the lower Court along with a copy of this judgment and order. 14. I appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr.B.Chakraborty, learned Amicus Curiae. He be paid an amount to the tune of Rs.5,000/- as being his fees. _____________