Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 549 (GAU)

Sonaram Tudu v. State of Assam

2013-08-10

I.A.ANSARI, INDIRA SHAH

body2013
JUDGMENT Dr. Indira Shah, J. 1. The judgment and order, dated 23.07.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar, in Sessions Case No. 26 of 2009, convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him thereby to undergo imprisonment for life and also pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, stand assailed in this appeal. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 02.07.2008, at about 6.30 P.M., Ela Soren (deceased) went to the house of Ananda Tudu and while she was returning back home, the accused appellant, in front of his house, killed her by inflicting on her injuries by means of sword. Sonaram Tudu (P.W. 3), brother-in-law of the deceased, witnessed the occurrence. The accused after inflicting the blows by means of sword, ran away towards his house holding the sword in his hand. P.W. 3 raised alarm and, on, hearing the alarm, people from the vicinity including the husband of the deceased arrived at the place of occurrence. Victim Ela Soren died immediately. Thereafter, the VDP Secretary (P.W. 5) informed the police over telephone. Police came and seized one wooden handle of the sword from the place of occurrence. P.W. 2 Naren Tudu, husband of the deceased, lodged a formal written Ejahar and treating the Ejahar as first information report, police registered Tamarhat P.S. Case No. 41/2008 under Section 302 IPC. The accused was arrested and the sword, which had been used in commission of offence, was recovered, at his instance, from a pond situated in the compound of the house of the father-in-law of the accused. 2. During investigation, inquest on the dead body was held by the executive magistrate and it was subjected to post-mortem examination. The statement of the accused, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, leading to discovery of the sword was also recorded prior to the seizure of the sword. On completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the accused under Sections 341 /302 IPC. 3. Having found material under Section 302 IPC, the learned trial Court framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined altogether 9 witnesses. Thereafter, the statement of the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded. 3. Having found material under Section 302 IPC, the learned trial Court framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined altogether 9 witnesses. Thereafter, the statement of the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded. The accused, in his statement, so recorded, denied all the allegations levelled against him and pleaded that he is innocent. No defence evidence was, however, adduced on behalf of the accused. 5. Having found the accused guilty of the offence, which he stood charged with, learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentence against him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence, which has been passed against him, this appeal has been preferred by the accused as the convicted person. 6. We have heard Mr. C. Goswami, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned Addl. P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. 7. P.W. 3 (Soleman Tudu) is examined as the sole eyewitness of the occurrence. He deposed that on 02.07.2008, at around 6.30 P.M., while he was at his home, he heard hue and cry and, immediately, came out of his house and saw the accused inflicting blows by means of sword on Ela Soren. Seeing him, the accused ran towards his house holding the sword, P.W. 2, in order to apprehend him, chased him to a certain distance and, thereafter, he raised hue and cry. The people from the vicinity as well as his brother (husband of the deceased) came there and he, then, reported the incident to them. He noticed cut injuries on the neck and hand of the victim. The victim succumbed to her injuries at the place of occurrence. 8. The VDP Secretary, Nikolas Hembram, lodged, according to PW 2, information with the police, over telephone, about the occurrence. 9. It is in the evidence of PW 2 that on receipt of the information, police came and took away the dead body for post-mortem examination and that police also seized, in his presence, the wooden handle of the sword lying at the place of occurrence. 10. In cross-examination, PW 2 has stated that he was first to reach the place of occurrence and he saw accused inflicting blows by means of sword on the deceased. 10. In cross-examination, PW 2 has stated that he was first to reach the place of occurrence and he saw accused inflicting blows by means of sword on the deceased. This witness (PW 2) also stated that it was not dark at the relevant point of time and he could clearly identify the accused and although, he chased the accused, he could not apprehend the accused. 11. P.W. 2 (Naren Tudu), husband of the deceased has stated that incident was reported to him by his brother, Soleman Tudu, whereupon he went to the place of occurrence and found his wife lying dead with cut injury on her neck and hand, which was profusely bleeding. PW 2 has also deposed that VDP Secretary, Nikolas Hembram, informed the police over telephone. 12. As far as P.W. 4 (Ismail Hembram) and P.W. 5, (Nikolas Hembram) are concerned, they saw the victim lying dead in front of the house of the accused. P.W. 4 has also stated that he saw Naren Tudu crying near the dead body of his wife and that Naren Tudu told him (PW 4) that accused killed his wife. P.W. 5 arrived at the place of occurrence on being informed about the incident that Sonaram Tudu had committed murder of Ela Soren. According to him, he informed the police over mobile phone. 13. P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 also witnessed the seizure of handle of the sword. P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 stated that in the night itself, the accused was arrested by the police. Next day, police brought him to the place of occurrence and at the instance of the accused a sword was recovered from the pond belonging to the father-in-law of the accused. P.Ws. 4 & 5 have also stated that the accused confessed his guilt before them in presence of police. P.W. 6 Kornel Hembram witnessed the inquest held on the dead body of the said deceased. The incident was reported to him by P.W. 7 (Sauna Mandi), who was VDP President and on getting information, he went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the deceased with cut injury over the body. 14. Lending support to the evidence of P.Ws. The incident was reported to him by P.W. 7 (Sauna Mandi), who was VDP President and on getting information, he went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the deceased with cut injury over the body. 14. Lending support to the evidence of P.Ws. 4 & 5, PW 7 has stated that the accused confessed his guilt and at his instance, the sword used for commission of crime was recovered from the pond belonging to Shiblal. It is in the evidence of PW 7 that inquest on the dead body was held by the executive magistrate in his presence and that the accused, during interrogation, at the police station, confessed his guilt and stated that he could produce the sword by which he committed the murder. This witness (PW 7) stated that the accused threw the sword in a pond. The disclosure statement of the accused was recorded by P.W. 9 and it was exhibited as Ext. 7. The sword was recovered from a pond at the instance of the accused and it was seized in presence of the witnesses. The sword recovered from the pond was without handle. 15. P.W. 1, Dr. Mintu Raj Boro performed the post-mortem on the dead body Ela Soren (deceased) on 04.07.2008. His findings are as follows:- I found sharp cut injury at the neck portion. Only flap of skin is left. Dis-numbered of the part of the body at the left hand at wretch joint. Small 1.11 c.m. dip injury at small angle. Spinal cord was cut out at the neck portion. 16. In the opinion of doctor, death was due to the injuries sustained by the deceased. In cross-examination, the doctor denied that such injuries can be caused due to fall on hard substance. 17. The witnesses, who saw the dead body, have corroborated the evidence of doctor. They also noticed cut injuries in the neck and wrist joint of the deceased. The doctor also found the spinal cord was cut at the neck portion. From the medical as well as ocular evidence, the prosecution clearly established that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. The victim sustained cut injuries and the prosecution case is that injuries were caused by means of sword. As regards the involvement of the accused, there is eyewitness's account of the occurrence given by P.W. 3. From the medical as well as ocular evidence, the prosecution clearly established that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. The victim sustained cut injuries and the prosecution case is that injuries were caused by means of sword. As regards the involvement of the accused, there is eyewitness's account of the occurrence given by P.W. 3. The evidence, adduced by the P.W. 3, has remained unshaken and the same has been corroborated by other witnesses. 18. That apart, though the confession allegedly made by the accused-appellant was inadmissible in law, the recovery of weapon of assault, at the instance of the accused, further lends support to the prosecution's case. The accused was chased by P.W. 3, but he managed to escape. Subsequently, he was arrested by the police. The weapon of assault i.e. sword was recovered from the pond belonging to the father-in-law of the accused-appellant. The evidence, adduced by the witnesses remain unshaken during their cross-examination and there is, therefore, nothing to disbelieve their evidence. 19. In view of the above, we find that the learned trial Court rightly held the accused guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC. Neither the conviction of the accused-appellant nor his sentence calls for interference. The impugned judgment and order stands, therefore, upheld. 20. Resultantly, the appeal fails. 21. While appreciating the assistance rendered by Mr. C. Goswami, learned Amicus Curiae, we hereby direct that he be paid Rs. 5000/-. Send back the LCR.