Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 950 (GAU)

Binoy Ganju v. State of Assam

2012-08-08

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, INDIRA SHAH

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. The judgment and order dated 17.07.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Sessions Case No. 86(J-J)/2006 has been assailed in this appeal. The appellant had been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Heard Mr. Rafiqul Islam, learned Amicus Curie and Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 11.7.2006 at about 6 p.m., the accused Binoy Ganju came to the house of the victim, stabbed her by means of a khukuri. FIR being lodged by the brother of the victim, police registered the case and on completion of investigation submitted the charge sheet under Section 302 IPC. 3. Dr. Shyamanta Madhab Sarmah conducted the post-mortem examination on the deadbody of deceased Bagi Bhuyan on 12.7.2006 and his findings are as follows: WOUNDS, POSITION, SIZE AND CHARACTER Two deep cut injuries marks observed in front of chest are in right gravity. 1" x 1/2" x 4" penetrating injury. One in middle of chest near medical goarden of right breast of size 1" x 1/2" x 4" penetrating. One more mark of penetrating injury above public symphyxin in mid line 1/2" x 1/2" x 2". Injuries by sharp cutting weapon. PERICARDIUM Medially ruptured and intravasation of blood found. HEART :- Medial wall of ant. right chamber and right ventricle completely ruptured and intravasation of blood found. MORE DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF INJURY OR DISEASE The injuries described are ante-mortem in nature and fatal. In the opinion of doctor, death was due to syncope as a result of hemorrhage and shock. All the injuries were ante-mortem and fatal. He admitted that the mat. Exhibit-1 i.e. seized khukuri, is sufficient to cause the injuries. 4. PW4, Papen Bhuyan is informant and elder brother of the deceased. PW5 is younger brother, PW6 is the sister-in-law and wife of PW4 and PW7 is the mother of the victim. Popen Bhuyan (PW4), Bhaity Bhuyan (PW5), Deepa Bhuyan (PW6) and Kameleswary Bhuyan (PW7) all have stated that the accused visited the house of the victim. They saw him sitting on a chair in the courtyard and the victim attending him sitting on another chair. Popen Bhuyan (PW4), Bhaity Bhuyan (PW5), Deepa Bhuyan (PW6) and Kameleswary Bhuyan (PW7) all have stated that the accused visited the house of the victim. They saw him sitting on a chair in the courtyard and the victim attending him sitting on another chair. They stated that the victim Bogi Bhuyan was a garden labourer and unable to go for plucking tea leaves as she was suffering from Small-Pox. PW7 has stated that she offered tobacco with lime to the accused and thereafter, she had gone inside the house for lightning a lamp. PW6 (Deepa) was busy with cutting vegetables inside the house and in the meantime PW4 (Popen) entered the house. The accused asked the victim as to why she did not go to his tea garden for plucking and whether she would resume her work. To his query the victim replied that she was suffering from Small Pox and she was not in a position to resume her work in the Tea Garden of the accused. Her reply infuriated the accused and thereby he pushed away the victim. The victim fell down alongwith her chair and then the accused stabbed on her chest, stomach and under the armpit by means of a khukhuri. The accused thereafter fled away from the place alongwith the Khukhuri but he left a lady's umbrella at the place of occurrence. It was PW5 (Bhaity) who witnessed the entire incident and other witnesses reached in the place of occurrence hearing hue and cry. PW4 who was changing his cloth inside house came out, hearing the shout of his mother. His elder brother told him that the accused stabbed the victim. He saw the accused running away. PW7 also stated that she saw the accused fleeing away. 5. PW13 was the second officer working at Titabor police station. According to him initially the information of the incident was lodged over telephone. The information was entered in General Diary and on the basis of G.D. Entry, PW13, alongwith the Officer Incharge of the Police Station, visited the place of occurrence. One umbrella was seized from the place of occurrence. Inquest on the deadbody was held and on the same day an FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased. The information was entered in General Diary and on the basis of G.D. Entry, PW13, alongwith the Officer Incharge of the Police Station, visited the place of occurrence. One umbrella was seized from the place of occurrence. Inquest on the deadbody was held and on the same day an FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased. PW13 further stated that at around 12, midnight, the accused alongwith a knife appeared at the police station and stated that he has killed the deceased Bogi Bhuyan. The knife was seized from the possession of the accused. 6. Apart from the evidence of PW5 and his family members PW8 Ratia Bhuyan and PW10 Naren Kurmi who are the neighbours of the victim saw the accused being chased by Papen (PW4) and his brother PW5 Bhaity Bhuyan. PW10 further stated that he had also seen the accused sitting at the courtyard of the deceased prior to the incident. Both the witnesses stated that the accused used to visit the house of the victim. 7. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted that he used to visit the house of the victim. He further admitted his presence at the place of occurrence, at the time and date of occurrence. According to him he went there to pay weekly salary to the victim. He stated that he went to the Police Station on being called by the police. 8. PW5 gave vivid description of the incident. There is nothing to disbelieve his evidence. Moreover, his evidence is fully corroborated by the medical evidence and other witnesses. The trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and found the accused guilty under Section 302 IPC. 9. In view of the above, judgment passed by the trial Court is upheld. 10. In view of judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 93(J)/2005 and in the light of judgment passed in the case of Binod Karmakar -Vs- State of Assam 2012 (1) GLT 693 with regard to compensation to the dependants of victim under Section 357A Cr.P.C. as an interim measure the State Government is directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only with the District Legal Service Authority, Jorhat. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only with the District Legal Service Authority, Jorhat. The District Legal Services Authority, on receipt of the said money, shall make an enquiry to ascertain as to whether, there is dependent (s), who suffered loss and injury as a result of death of the deceased and also if such dependent(s) or legal representative(s) need any rehabilitation. Upon such enquiry, if it is found that the dependent(s), if any, need rehabilitation, then the District Legal Services Authority shall initially release the said interim amount and thereafter direct payment of adequate compensation, as may be prescribed by the scheme to be prepared by the State Government. It is made clear that if the District legal Services Authority, after due enquiry, arrive at the findings that there is no dependent(s) or that the dependent(s) of the deceased/victim does not require any rehabilitation, then the District Legal Services Authority, shall refund the said amount of Rs. 50,000/- , without delay, in favour of the State Government. Send back the LCR alongwith a copy of this judgment.