Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 6 (GAU)

Santosh Sahu v. State of Assam

2012-01-03

A.K.GOEL, C.R.SARMA

body2012
C.R. Sarma, J.;— This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.09.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaon in Sessions Case No. 239/05. By the impugned judgment and order the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another period of 6 months for his conviction u/s. 302 IPC. We have heard Mr. S. Banik, learned Amucus Curiae appearing for the appellant and Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State. The prosecution case in brief is that on the previous night of the occurrence the appellant left his house after picking up a quarrel with his wife. They were married about one year ago. The appellant used to live along with his wife in his father-in-law’s house. On the date of occurrence i.e. on 30.01.2005 at about 8 p.m. the accused returned home and called the deceased to come out. On being so called, the father-in-law (PW 2) of the appellant came out and he was assaulted by the appellant. At that time the deceased, who was pregnant for 7 months came out and she was hit on her abdomen by the appellant and fled the place. On being assaulted by the appellant, the deceased died while taking steps to take her to the hospital. Shri Dhiraj Pradhan (PW-1), brother of the deceased lodged an FIR (Ext. 1) with the Police. On receipt of the said FIR, police visited the place of occurrence, prepared sketch map, conducted inquest in respect of the dead body and sent the same for post mortem examination. During the course of investigation police arrested the appellant and examined witnesses. At the close of the investigation police submitted charge-sheet (ext.1) u/s. 302 IPC. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions the case was committee to the Court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellant u./s. 302 IPC to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses including the medical officer (PW-5) and the Investigating Officer (PW-6). At the close of the examination of prosecution witnesses, the accused persons was examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses including the medical officer (PW-5) and the Investigating Officer (PW-6). At the close of the examination of prosecution witnesses, the accused persons was examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.. He denied the allegation brought against him and declined to adduce defence evidence. Mr. S. Banik, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant submitted that there is no sufficient reliable and cogent evidence against the appellant, and as such the learned Sessions Judge committed error by recording conviction u/s. 302 IPC. It is also submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the appellant had intention to cause the death of the deceased and as such the conviction u/s. 302 IPC cannot be maintained. Supporting the conviction and sentence Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that the PW-2 i.e. the father –in-law of the deceased was the eye witness to the occurrence and he clearly stated that the appellant had assaulted the deceased causing her death. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that no contradiction or discrepancy could be elicited to disbelieve the forceful evidence given by the said PW-2 and as such there is substantive evidence to show that the appellant had caused the death of the deceased. It is also submitted that as the deceased was pregnant for 7 months at the relevant time the blow given by the appellant on the abdomen was sufficient to cause her death and as such the learned Sessions Judge committed no error by recording conviction u/s. 302 IPC. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and considering the evidence on record, we find that the prosecution case is based on the evidence of PW-2 who was an eye witness to the occurrence. All the non-official prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 to 4 clearly stated that the occurrence took place on the night of 3.1.2005 and the deceased died in connection with the said occurrence. The FIR being lodged, the PW-6 who took up the investigation visited the place of occurrence and found the dead body of the deceased on her bed and that the inquest was done by the Executive Magistrate. He also stated that the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. The FIR being lodged, the PW-6 who took up the investigation visited the place of occurrence and found the dead body of the deceased on her bed and that the inquest was done by the Executive Magistrate. He also stated that the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. The medical officer (PW-5) who performed the inquest in respect of the dead body found the following injuries :- 1. Swelling of vault of skull over the left parietal region size 3”x 3”. 2. Blood clots are seen under the meninges and brain tissues in the left parietal lobe. 3. Abdomen- (Disection) (i) Uterus is twenty week pregnant. On opening of uterus an intra uterine fetal death fetus is found which is of 20 week size and female sex. Abdominal wall, peritoneum, mouth esophagous, stomach are all congested. He opined that the injuries were ante mortem and the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries sustained. In view of the evidence there is not dispute that the deceased died due to injuries sustained by her. The medical evidence that the fetus (20 weeks size) was found dead supports the prosecution version that the deceased was pregnant at the relevant tie and that she sustained injury on her abdomen. It is of common knowledge that any blow given on the abdomen of a pregnant lady may cause serious effect on her life. The PW-2 father –in-law of the appellant who is the father of the deceased clearly stated that the appellant had assaulted the deceased on her abdomen as a result of which she died. This evidence of the PW-2, who was duly cross-examined on behalf of the appellant, remained un-demolished. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant who was the father-in-law of the appellant had any interest or grudge to falsely implicate his son-in-law leaving the actual culprit. Therefore, we find no difficulty to accept the evidence given by the PW-2. In view of the above, it has been established that the appellant had caused the death of the deceased by assaulting her on her abdomen. The medical evidence (evidence of PW-5) reveals that there was swelling of vault of skull and blood clots under the meninges and brain tissues in the left parietal lobe of the deceased. In view of the above, it has been established that the appellant had caused the death of the deceased by assaulting her on her abdomen. The medical evidence (evidence of PW-5) reveals that there was swelling of vault of skull and blood clots under the meninges and brain tissues in the left parietal lobe of the deceased. The said swelling and the blood clots might have been caused death due to falling of the deceased on being hit by the appellant. As the fetus of the deceased who was pregnant of 20 weeks died due to the assault caused by the appellant. The impact of the blow given by him can be understood to be very serious and grave. In view of the above, we find that the appellant caused the death of the deceased by assaulting her on her abdomen. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant was provoked by the deceased in any manner or that he had hit her in a heat of passion due to sudden quarrel. From the evidence of PW-2 it has been revealed that on the previous night the appellant had picked up quarrel and he left the house. He hit the appellant on the next evening after returning home and calling her out therefrom. The said facts and circumstance and the part of the body in which the fatal blow was inflicted safely lead the conclusion that the appellant had caused the assault with the intention of causing the death of the deceased. As the circumstance in which the offence was committed does not fall under any of the exceptions prescribed by section 300 IPC, we have no hesitation in holding that the accused had committed the offence of murder as defined by section 300 IPC. Therefore, in our considered opinion the learned Trial Judge committed no error by convicting and sentencing the appellant u/s. 302 IPC. Accordingly we do not find sufficient merit in this appeal requiring interference of the impugned conviction and sentence. Hence, the conviction and sentence aforesaid are upheld and the appeal is dismissed. Before we part with this record, we appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel as Amicus Curiae and we direct that an amount of Rs. 3,500/- be paid to Mr. Bank, learned Amicus Curiae by the State Legal Services Authority as his remuneration. Return the LCR forthwith. _____________