Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 948 (GAU)

Raj Kumar Patra v. State of Assam

2012-08-08

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, B.D.AGARWAL

body2012
JUDGMENT Agarwal, J. 1. The appellant herein was a stranger at village Parua under Tezpur Police Station. He came to the said village with a woman (the deceased) in the evening hours on 27.5.2005 and took shelter in the house of the informant. The appellant introduced himself as the husband of the deceased woman. In the early morning on the next day, the appellant himself reported to the inmates of the house that his wife was missing. After some time, the informant went to a nearby sugarcane field to answer the nature's call where he found the dead body of the wife of the accused. On being questioned by the family members and other villagers, the accused admitted before them that he had killed his wife as she was insisting him to marry her formally. On the basis of this admission of the accused, PW 2 lodged a written FIR and after investigation charge sheet was submitted and the accused/appellant was tried for committing an offence of murder. After the trial the accused has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide impugned judgment dated 4.2.2006 passed by the then learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Sessions Case No. 176 of 2005. By the said judgment, the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 1000.00 with default sentence of further RI for two months. Being aggrieved with the conviction and sentence, the convict has filed this appeal from jail. 2. We have heard Smti. RD Mazumdar, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant as well as Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. PP for the State. We have also perused the impugned judgment and the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the trial court. We have also taken into consideration the admission made by the appellant while giving his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. PWs 2,4 and 5 are the inmates of the house where the appellant had taken shelter on the relevant night along with the deceased woman. 4. All these three witnesses deposed in unison that the accused had introduced himself as the husband of the deceased. The witnesses have further deposed that on the relevant night both the accused and the deceased slept together in a room. 4. All these three witnesses deposed in unison that the accused had introduced himself as the husband of the deceased. The witnesses have further deposed that on the relevant night both the accused and the deceased slept together in a room. However, in the morning, the woman was found missing and after some time her dead body was located in a nearby sugarcane field. PWs 2 and 4 have also deposed that on being quizzed the accused/appellant confessed before them that he himself had killed the woman to get rid of her as the woman was pressurizing the accused to marry her formally. However, PW 5 has deposed that the confession was made in the police station. 5. PW 3 is the Secretary of the Village Defence Party. This witness has deposed that getting the information of recovery of the dead body from the sugarcane field, he visited the place of occurrence and the accused was also preparing to leave the house of the informant. However, the accused was prevented from leaving the village and on interrogation the accused had admitted that he had killed the woman. Before this witness also the accused gave the same explanation that he wanted to get rid of the woman as she was insisting to marry her formally. 6. PWs 6 and 7 are also co-villagers. They have also spoken about the accused taking shelter in the house of the informant in company with the deceased. In addition to that, PW 6 has also deposed that when the dead body of the woman was recovered and the accused was questioned, he confessed before the villagers that he had killed the woman by strangulating her. PW 6 has further elaborated that the accused had taken the woman to the field on the pretext of attending the call of the nature. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the following circumstances appear to have been proved by the prosecution: (i) The appellant stayed with the deceased woman in the house of the informant on the relevant night. (ii) The appellant was alone in company with the deceased on the relevant night. (iii) The woman was murdered during the night hours and her dead body was found in the early morning and there is no evidence that during this period the deceased had met any other person. (ii) The appellant was alone in company with the deceased on the relevant night. (iii) The woman was murdered during the night hours and her dead body was found in the early morning and there is no evidence that during this period the deceased had met any other person. (iv) The appellant tried to flee away from the village soon after the recovery of the dead body. (v) Extra judicial confession of the accused before a good number of independent witnesses. 8. PW 1 is the doctor who had conduced autopsy on the dead body. During postmortem examination the dead body was found swelling with, multiple abrasions and bruise injuries on different parts of the body, particularly on the chest. As a result of the assault there were fractures on the 5th, 6th and 7th ribs on the right side. In the opinion of doctor, it was caused due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of injuries, which were antemortem in nature. 9. In our opinion, all the aforesaid incriminating evidence have formed a complete chain to prove that it was the appellant who had killed the deceased and none else. The incriminating circumstances do not admit any other theory. 10. In the case of State of Maharastra -Vs- Raja Ram; reported in (2003) 8 SCC 180 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a free and voluntary confession deserves highest credit because it is presumed to flow from the highest sense of guilt. In the case at hand, the extra judicial confession was made before independent witnesses of a different village and as such there is little scope to doubt about the veracity of the deposition of independent witnesses. Besides this, the extra judicial confession is backed by other incriminating circumstances, noted above. 11. Now the pertinent issue in this case is as to whether culpable homicide of the deceased woman amounted to an offence of murder. 12. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the offence was committed under provocation and the appellant was deprived of the power of self-control due to erratic behavior of the deceased. According to the learned counsel, the deceased was insisting the appellant to marry her formally. 13. After giving our anxious thought we are not prepared to accept the appellant's version. According to the learned counsel, the deceased was insisting the appellant to marry her formally. 13. After giving our anxious thought we are not prepared to accept the appellant's version. We have already noted earlier that the appellant was from a different village and the offence of murder was committed in a different village. From his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it appears that the accused hailed from village Balidonga under Sotea Police Station whereas the woman was killed in village Parua under Tezpur Police Station. If the deceased was a woman of wobbly character and if she was nagging the appellant and giving undue pressure to marry her formally, the appellant could have retaliated the provocation in his own village. However, in stead of retaliating the offence in village Balidonga and took shelter in the house of the unknown person and killed the woman by way of assaulting her with a blunt weapon. There is no evidence on record that on the relevant night also any quarrel had taken place in between the appellant and his wife to take a view that the murder was committed under provocation. Hence, we find no difficulty to hold that the appellant had killed the woman in a planned manner and without any provocation. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that there is no merit in this criminal appeal. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.