Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 60 (GAU)

Anandi Rava v. State of Assam

2013-01-30

I.A.ANSARI, P.K.MUSAHARY

body2013
JUDGMENT Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, J. 1. By the impugned judgment and order dated 20.12.2007, passed, in Sessions Case No. 150(DM) 2006, the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, has convicted the accused-appellant, under Sections 302 IPC, and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described as under: On 05.04.2006, at about 2-00 O'clock in the afternoon, when PW 1, accompanied by his brother, Rupen Rava (since deceased), was making purchases in the market, accused, Anandi Rava, came from behind and gave a blow by means of a dao on Rupen Rava's neck. As a result of the blow, so given by dao, Rupen Rava fell down on the ground, whereupon accused Rupen Rava killed him by hacking him with dao. A First Information Report (in short, 'FIR') having been lodged, in this regard, by PW 1, at Udalguri Police Station, on 05.04.2006 itself, Udalguri Police Station Case No. 34/06, under Section 302 IPC, was registered against the accused. 2. During the course of investigation, police visited the place of occurrence, held inquest over the dead body and, on completion of investigation, laid charge-sheet, under Section 302 IPC, against the accused. 3. At the trial, when a charge, under Section 302 IPC, was framed against the accused, he pleaded not guilty thereto. 4. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 10 (ten) witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 CrPC and, in his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offence, which was alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of complete denial. No evidence was adduced by the defence. 5. Having found the accused guilty of the offence, which he stood charged with, the 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, the accused, as a convicted person, has preferred this appeal. 6. We have heard Ms. M. Bujarbaruah, learned amicus curiae. We have also heard Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam. 7. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence, which has been passed against him, the accused, as a convicted person, has preferred this appeal. 6. We have heard Ms. M. Bujarbaruah, learned amicus curiae. We have also heard Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam. 7. Before we enter into the discussion of evidence given by the eye-witnesses, it is apposite, in the context of the facts of the present case, that we take into account the medical evidence on record. It may be noted, in this regard, that the doctor (PW 5) had, admittedly, conducted the post-mortem examination, on 06.04.2006, on the dead body of Rupen Rava and found as follows: (i) Cut injury in the occipital region placed obliquely (7 cm X 1.5 cm X 1 cm) (ii) Cut injury in the nape of neck with exposure of cervical vertebrae (12 cm X 5 cm X 3 cm) (iii) One cut injury in front of the neck exposing the muscles, vessels and nerves extending from the neck in front up to the clavicle on the left side. (iv) Amputated right and middle index finger in the middle phalanx. 8. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage, which resulted from the injuries sustained, the injuries being ante mortem in nature. It is also in the evidence of PW 5 that Exhibit 2 is the post mortem report and Exhibit 2 (1) is his signature. 9. The defence, one may note, had declined to cross-examine PW 5. Thus, the findings of the doctor (PW 5), as regard the injuries, which had been sustained by Rupen Rava (i.e., the deceased), and the cause of his death, remained undisputed. This apart, we, too, do not notice anything inherently incorrect and improbable in the evidence given by PW 5. We, therefore, do not see any reason to discard the medical evidence on record or not to give the due, which the medical evidence deserves. 10. The evidence, given by the doctor clearly proves that there was a cut injury on the occipital region of the neck of the deceased and another cut injury on the front of the neck coupled with the amputated right and middle index finger. 11. 10. The evidence, given by the doctor clearly proves that there was a cut injury on the occipital region of the neck of the deceased and another cut injury on the front of the neck coupled with the amputated right and middle index finger. 11. Thus, Rupen Rava had, in the face of the medical evidence on record, sustained multiple injuries on the vital parts of his body and succumbed to the injuries so sustained. The medical evidence on record also clearly shows that there was, at least, one blow given on the said deceased from behind inasmuch as there was a cut injury, placed obliquely, as described above, on the occipital region of the said deceased. 12. Bearing in mind the medical evidence on record, when we turn to the evidence of PW 1, we note that, according to his evidence, on 05.04.2006, at about 2 pm, at Darangipara Saptahik Market, accused Anandi Rava assaulted Rupen Rava by a dao causing injuries on his head as well as neck resulting into his death. PW 1 has also deposed that police came to the place of occurrence, prepared inquest report and sent the said dead body to post mortem examination and also recorded his statement. 13. In his cross-examination, PW 1 has clarified that on the day of the incident, he (PW 1) and his brother, Rupen Rava (since deceased), were proceeding to Darangipara Saptahik Market and he had himself seen the incident 14. There was, virtually, no cross-examination of PW 1 and his entire evidence, as depicted above, has remained intact and unshaken. His evidence clearly shows that it was the accused-appellant, Anandi Rava, who had given blows by dao at Darangipara Saptahik Market on the head and neck of Rupen Rava and caused his death. 15. Close on the heels of the evidence of PW 1, PW 2 has deposed that he knows the informant (i.e., brother of the deceased) and that he had witnessed the incident of assault on Rupen Rava by Anandi Rava. PW 2 has also deposed, in his evidence, that the incident took place, on 05.04.2006, in the Darangipar Saptahik Market, at about 2-00 P.M., when he was purchasing commodities in the said market. PW 2 has also deposed, in his evidence, that the incident took place, on 05.04.2006, in the Darangipar Saptahik Market, at about 2-00 P.M., when he was purchasing commodities in the said market. It has been specifically deposed to by PW 2, in his evidence, that he saw accused Anandi Rava assaulting Rupen Rava by a dao at his head and neck and that Rupen Rava's dead body was sent to hospital for postmortem examination. 16. In his cross-examination, PW 2 has denied that the accused had not caused hurt on the person of Rupen Rava by a dao. 17. Broadly in tune with the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2, PW 3 has deposed that he knows both the accused and the deceased, that the incident took place in the market, where he, too, was present. PW 3 has further deposed that he saw accused Anandi Rava causing hurt on the head and neck of Rupen Rava, by a dao, and Rupen Rava died thereafter. In his cross-examination, too, PW 3 has asserted that he had seen the incident of assault on Rupen Rava by accused Anandi Rava. 18. Lending support to the evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3, PW 4 has deposed that he knew the deceased, Rupen Rava, as well as accused, Anandi Rava, and that, on 05.04.2006, at about 2-00 P.M., while he was present in the market, he saw accused Anandi Rava causing death of Rupen Rava by assaulting him with a dao at his head. 19. What is of utmost importance to note, while considering the evidence of PW 4, is that the defence declined to cross-examine PW 1. Hence, the evidence of PW 1 given to the effect that he had seen the accused causing death of Rupen Rava by assaulting the latter by means of a dao has remained unchallenged by the defence. 20. What may, now, be carefully noted is that PW 1 has clearly deposed, in his cross-examination, that while he, along with his brother, Rupen Rava, was proceeding to the market, he had seen the incident of assault himself. The evidence, so given by PW 1, has remained unshaken. Even the evidence of PW 2 could not be shaken by cross-examination. This apart, PW 3 has asserted, in his cross-examination, that he had witnessed the incident himself. The evidence, so given by PW 1, has remained unshaken. Even the evidence of PW 2 could not be shaken by cross-examination. This apart, PW 3 has asserted, in his cross-examination, that he had witnessed the incident himself. Moreover, the defence declined to cross-examination PW 4, whose clear evidence was that he had seen the accused causing death of Rupen Rava by assaulting with a dao at his head. 21. We have minutely gone through the cross-examination of PW 1, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4 and found that their evidence have remained wholly unshaken inasmuch as the defence miserably failed to elicit anything substantial from their cross-examination to show that what they had deposed did not merit reliance. 22. The evidence of PW 6, we note, lends substantive support to the evidence, which stand adduced by PW 1, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4 inasmuch as PW 6 has deposed that he knows both, the deceased Rupen Rava as well as accused Anandi Rava, that the incident took place at Udalguri Weekly market and that at the time of the incident, he was busy selling chili, etc., in the market. It is the further evidence of PW 6 that, while he was busy selling chili, he, suddenly, heard hue and cry inside the market and the people in the market were shouting that Rupen Rava had been killed by a person and he, then, saw the accused fleeing away from the place of the occurrence. 23. Nothing material could be elicited from the cross-examination of PW 6 to show that what he had deposed was untrue or false inasmuch as he has clearly deposed, in his cross-examination, that it was a market day and there were hundreds of people inside the market, who were found fleeing in all directions and that he had not seen the accused assaulting the deceased. 24. As far as PW 7, PW 8 and PW 9 are concerned, they are not very material inasmuch as they had not, according to their evidence, witnessed the assault on Rupen Rava by the accused. This does not, however, mean, we must hasten to add, that the evidence given by PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4 and PW 6, as to what had happened in the market and what they had witnessed in the market, are untrue or not worthy of reliance. 25. This does not, however, mean, we must hasten to add, that the evidence given by PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4 and PW 6, as to what had happened in the market and what they had witnessed in the market, are untrue or not worthy of reliance. 25. So far as the Investigating Officer (PW 10) is concerned, his evidence is merely routine and does not, therefore, need discussion. 26. What surfaces from the above discussion is that the evidence, given by PW 1, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4, describing the occurrence of assault, on Rupen Rava, by the accused-appellant, by means of a dao, stand well corroborated by the medical evidence on record. Thus, the evidence of PW 1, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4, coupled with the medical evidence, as given by PW 5, clearly prove that it was none, but the accused-appellant, who had assaulted Rupen Rava by means of a dao and caused his death. The multiple injuries, which the said deceased had sustained, are also proof of the fact that the accused did intend to cause Rupen Rava's death and he succeeded in achieving his intention. In other words, the parts of the body of Rupen Rava, where the blows were given, the force with which the blows were dealt with, and the fact that a deadly weapon, such as, dao, was used in causing the assault are indicative of the fact that the accused-appellant intended to cause death of Rupen Rava and did cause his death. 27. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we find that the evidence on record prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that it was none, but the accused-appellant, who had intentionally caused the death of Rupen Rava and thereby committed the offence of murder. We find this appeal wholly without merit. 28. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this appeal fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 29. Let the learned amicus curiae be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for her valuable assistance rendered to the Court. 30. With the above observations and directions, this appeal stands disposed of. Send back the LCR.