Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 507 (GAU)

Kartik Ch. Singh v. State of Assam

2013-08-01

I.A.ANSARI, INDIRA SHAH

body2013
JUDGMENT Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, J. 1. By judgment and order, dated 31.07.2009, passed, in Sessions Case No. 16 of 2007, by the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar, the accused-appellant, Kartik Chandra Singh, stands convicted under Sections 302 and 325 IPC and sentenced to suffer, for his conviction, under Section 302 IPC, imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to suffer, for his conviction under Section 325 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, both the sentences having been directed to run concurrently. The case of the prosecution, as surfaced at the trial, may, in brief, be described as under: (i) Accused, Kartik Singh, used to reside with his wife, Kakila Singh, and his 1 1/2 year old female child, Jorina Singh. The house, wherein the accused used to live with his family, was separate from the house, where his father, Gauranga Singh, his mother, Pusba Bala Singh, and his brother, Ganesh Singh, used to reside. However, the houses of the accused as well as his parents had a common compound. (ii) On 13.02.2006, at about middle of the night, when Kakila Singh was sleeping with her child after having her dinner, the accused came to his house and, suddenly, started assaulting his wife with a batam (i.e., a piece of wood, which is, generally, perpendicular or square in shape) injuring her and also assaulted, with the same piece of batam, his daughter, Jorina. Hearing hue and cry, raised from the house of the accused, his parents, followed by Ganesh Singh, brother of the accused, came out of their house and, on reaching the house of the accused and, on seeing the accused assaulting Kakila and Jorina, when Gauranga Singh, father of the accused, went forward to stop the accused, the accused assaulted his father, too, by means of the said batam. Having sustained injury on his person, Gauranga became senseless; so became senseless Kakila, wife of the accused, and when Kakila regained her senses, she saw her daughter, Jorina, in dying condition and, within a short while, Jorina passed away. Having sustained injury on his person, Gauranga became senseless; so became senseless Kakila, wife of the accused, and when Kakila regained her senses, she saw her daughter, Jorina, in dying condition and, within a short while, Jorina passed away. (iii) On seeing his father being assaulted by the accused, his brother, Ganesh Singh, caught hold of the accused and overpowered him. In the meanwhile, however, some of the neighbours arrived at the place of occurrence and, with the help of his neighbours, Ganesh Singh tied the accused by means of a rope. On an Ejahar (Ext. 1) being lodged by Gauranga Singh, father of the accused, at Kokrajhar Police Station, Kokrajhar Police Station Case No. 38/2006, under Sections 302/325 IPC, was registered against the accused treating the said Ejahar as First Information Report (in short, FIR),. 2. During investigation, police visited the place of occurrence and held inquest over the said dead body, which was also subjected to postmortem examination. Police also examined witnesses and seized, by Seizure List (Ext. 2), the pieces of the batam, which had been used by the accused to assault his wife, his daughter and his father. On completion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet, under Sections 302/325 IPC, against the accused. 3. At the trial, when charges, under Sections 302/325 IPC, were framed against the accused, he pleaded not guilty thereto. 4. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 14 (fourteen) witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.PC and, in his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offences, which were alleged to have been committed by him, his case being that of denial. No evidence was adduced by the defence. 5. Having, however, found the accused guilty of the offence, which he stood charged with, the learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentences against him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentences passed against him, the accused, as a convicted person, has preferred this appeal. 6. We have heard Ms. M. Buzarbaruah, learned amicus curiae, and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 7. Let us, first, consider the evidence of Kakila Singh (PW11). Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentences passed against him, the accused, as a convicted person, has preferred this appeal. 6. We have heard Ms. M. Buzarbaruah, learned amicus curiae, and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 7. Let us, first, consider the evidence of Kakila Singh (PW11). According to her evidence, on the day of the occurrence, she (PW11) returned home from work before sunset and, having her meals, she went to sleep and, at that time, her husband, i.e., the accused-appellant, was not at home. However, when her husband returned home, he, suddenly, started assaulting her by means of a batam and she sustained grievous injuries on her head and, thereafter, her husband threw their minor daughter, Jorina, against a tree and the said minor daughter, too, sustained grievous injuries on her head. It is in the evidence of PW11 (Kakila Singh) that when her husband started assaulting her, she raised hue and cry and, then, her father-in-law and mother-in-law came and saw the occurrence. It is also in the evidence of PW1 that having been assaulted, she lost her senses and, on gaining her senses, she saw her daughter in dying state and, after a while, her daughter, Jorina, passed away and the family members of her father-in-law tied her husband to a tree. PW11 has also deposed that on the following day, police arrived and the accused was handed over to them, police took away the dead body and she (PW11) underwent treatment at the hospital and that her father-in-law, too, had sustained injuries. 8. Though it had been suggested to PW11, during cross-examination by defence, that she had not told the police that her husband had killed her child, Jorina, by throwing her against a tree and though PW11 denied to have made any such statement to the police, the defence did not elicit any confirmation from the Investigating Officer (PW14) and, hence, the contradiction, which was so sought to be shown by the defence between the previous statement of PW11 made to the police and her evidence in the Court, ought to be treated as having not been proved. 9. PW11 (Kakila Singh) has to be, therefore, treated as completely reliable witness, more particularly, when she has no animosity against her husband and had no reason to falsely implicate him. 9. PW11 (Kakila Singh) has to be, therefore, treated as completely reliable witness, more particularly, when she has no animosity against her husband and had no reason to falsely implicate him. We may, in this regard, also hasten to point out that apart from the fact that the defence have not been able to shake the credibility of the evidence of PW11 (Kakila Singh), they have also completely failed to give any reasonable explanation for the injuries, which had been sustained by PW11, her father-in-law (PW1) and her daughter, Jorina, which led to her daughter's death. Thus, the evidence of PW11, describing the assault on her and her father-in-law by her husband and causing of injury to her 1 1/2 year old daughter, Jorina, has remained unshaken in material particulars. 10. Close on the heels of the evidence of PW11, PW1, father of the accused, has deposed that on the night of the occurrence, on hearing hulla raised from the house of the accused, he woke up and when he went out of his house, he saw the accused assaulting his wife and his daughter, Jorina, by a piece of batam and when he resisted the accused, the accused assaulted him by the said piece of batam, whereupon he (PW1) fell down and became senseless and, on regaining his senses after about one hour, he saw the dead body of Jorina Singh. On the next day morning, according to the evidence of PW1, he lodged a written Ejahar. It is also in the evidence of PW1 that he sustained injuries on his right cheek and ear and that he was treated by a doctor. 11. Though some contradictions were sought to be established by the defence between the evidence of PW1 and his statement, made before the police, these contradictions have not been proved. This apart, there is no reason for PW1 to falsely implicate his own son, i.e., the accused-appellant, by alleging that he was the one, who had assaulted his daughter-in-law, Kakila (PW11), and his grand-daughter, Jorina. 12. Because of what have been pointed out above, the evidence of PW1 has to be treated as wholly reliable; more so, when his evidence is, as already indicated above, supported by the evidence of his daughter-in-law, Kakila Singh (PW11), and also, as we shall show shortly, by the medical evidence on record. 13. 12. Because of what have been pointed out above, the evidence of PW1 has to be treated as wholly reliable; more so, when his evidence is, as already indicated above, supported by the evidence of his daughter-in-law, Kakila Singh (PW11), and also, as we shall show shortly, by the medical evidence on record. 13. Coming to the medical evidence on record, we notice that the evidence of PW1, as we have already pointed out above, is well supported by the medical evidence inasmuch as the doctor (PW6), who had, on 14.02.2006, examined PW1 at RNB Civil Hospital, Kokrajhar, has deposed that he found, on examining Gauranga Singh (PW1), as follows: There is bruise on the right hand measuring 1/2 inch x 1/2 inch and the nature of the injury is simple one. No tail of the injury. Age of the injury cannot be ascertained. Ext. 6 is my report and 6(1) is my signature. 14. Broadly in tune with the evidence of her husband (PW1), PW2 (Puspa Bala Singha), who is mother of the accused-appellant, has deposed that on the day of the occurrence, at about middle night, hearing hulla, she, along with her husband, went out of her house and saw the accused assaulting his wife and daughter, Jorina, by means of a batam and when her husband (PW1) resisted the accused, the accused assaulted her husband (PW1) too by means of the said batam, her husband (PW1) fell down and became senseless. It is also in the evidence of PW2 that as she remained busy with her husband (PW1), she did not know what exactly happened thereafter and, on the next day, police came to their house and examined her (PW2). 15. Nothing at all could be elicited from the cross-examination of PW2 by the defence to show that what she had deposed was untrue or false. In fact, in cross-examination, her evidence remained wholly unshaken. This apart, we have already indicated above, that the medical evidence on record corroborates and supports the evidence of PW2 that her husband had, indeed, been injured and so injured was her daughter-in-law, Kakila Singh (PW11), and her grand-daughter, Jorina, who, eventually, died. 16. In fact, in cross-examination, her evidence remained wholly unshaken. This apart, we have already indicated above, that the medical evidence on record corroborates and supports the evidence of PW2 that her husband had, indeed, been injured and so injured was her daughter-in-law, Kakila Singh (PW11), and her grand-daughter, Jorina, who, eventually, died. 16. Lending support to the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW11, PW3 (Ganesh Singh), brother of the accused-appellant, has deposed that on the day of the occurrence, at about 12/1.00 am, he woke up on hearing hulla raised by his mother and when he went out, he saw his brother, Kartik (i.e., the appellant herein), assaulting his father by means of a batam, whereupon he apprehended the accused and tied him by a rope and that the neighbours, too, came and they also helped in tying the accused by means of a rope. It is in the evidence of PW3 that after having tied the accused, he saw the dead body of Jorina, who was about 1 1/2 years old. Lending further support to the evidence of PW11, this witness has deposed that he saw injury on the head of Kakila. 17. From cross-examination of PW3 also, nothing could be elicited by the defence to show that what he had deposed was untrue or false. In fact, his evidence remained wholly unshaken even after his cross-examination by the defence. 18. We may point out, at this stage, that PW6, who is a doctor and who is conversant with the handwriting of Dr. Abdul Moid, has deposed that on 14.02.2006, he was in RNB Civil Hospital, Kokrajhar, as Senior Medical & Health Officer-I, with Dr. A. Moid and Dr. B.C. Medhi as his colleagues and, on that day, his colleague, Dr. Moid, examined Kakila Singh and found the following injuries: 1. Lacerated injury scalp. Occipital region measuring 3 inch x 1 inch bone deep. 2. Ski gram shows fracture ante table of occipital bone. Type of weapon blunt and nature of injury grievous in nature. Ext. 7 is medical report issued by Dr. A. Moid and Ext. 7(1) is his signature. I know his signature as colleague officer. 19. The injuries, which were said to have been found on the person of Kakila Singh, have not been disputed by the defence. Type of weapon blunt and nature of injury grievous in nature. Ext. 7 is medical report issued by Dr. A. Moid and Ext. 7(1) is his signature. I know his signature as colleague officer. 19. The injuries, which were said to have been found on the person of Kakila Singh, have not been disputed by the defence. This apart, the medical evidence on record clearly supports the evidence of PW11 that she had been assaulted on her head and had sustained injury on her head. 20. With regard to post mortem examination, conducted on the dead body of Jorina, it is noteworthy that it is in the evidence of PW6, as already indicated above, that on 14.02.2006, he was in RNB Civil Hospital, Kokrajhar, as Senior Medical & Health Officer-I, with Dr. Moid and Dr. B.C. Medhi as his colleagues and, on that day, his colleague, Dr. B.C. Medhi, conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Jorina and found as follows: A dead body of female child age 1 1/2 years. Baby is in the state of rigor mortis. 1. An oblique cut injury of size of 4 cm x 1 cm x deep inside skull seen in the middle position of forehead lower end injury near lateral side of right eyebrow. Underlying skill bone frontal bone has sustained depressed fracture. Brain matter is coming out of the wound which is already decomposed. 2. Right side of face bears multiple number of abrasion. 21. It is in the evidence of PW6 that according to the opinion of Dr. Medhi, who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Jorina, the cause of death was the head and brain injuries, which were ante mortem in nature, Ext. 8 was the post mortem report and Ext. 8(1) was the signature of Dr. B.C. Medhi, whose hand writing and signature, as already indicated above, PW6 is acquainted with. 22. As far as the findings of the doctor and his opinion with regard to the nature of injuries and the cause of death of Jorina are concerned, what is important to note is that the defence has not disputed the findings and the opinion of the doctor with regard to the cause of death of Jorina, which we have mentioned hereinbefore. 23. 23. Situated thus, it is clear that the medical evidence on record lends immense support to the oral evidence and corroborates, in all material particular, the oral evidence, given in the Court, by the four witnesses, namely, PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW11. 24. Coupled with the above, PW12, who is sister of Kakila Singh (PW11), has deposed that on the night of the occurrence, on hearing hulla raised from the house of Kartik (i.e., the accused-appellant), she came there and, on arriving there, she (PW12) heard family members of Kartik saying, "Kartik is killing the inmates of his house, catch him and tie him up" and, then, she, in association with Kartik's brother, Ganesh, tied the accused Kartik by means of a rope to a tree. 25. The evidence, so given by PW12, remained not only unshaken, but also undisputed. Thus, the evidence of PW12 further lends support to the evidence, which we have already discussed above. 26. In the face of the evidence on record, there is no escape from the conclusion, and the learned trial Court has rightly concluded, that it was the accused-appellant, who had intentionally caused death of his daughter and also voluntarily assaulted and injured his wife and his father. 27. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we do not find any merit in this appeal. This appeal, therefore, fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. The conviction of the accused-appellant and the sentences, passed against him, are hereby upheld. 28. Let the amicus curiae be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for her valuable assistance rendered to the Court. Send back the LCR.