Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1428 (GAU)

Sunderjit Tanti v. State of Assam

2015-11-17

B.K.SHARMA, PARAN KUMAR PHUKAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : B.K. Sharma, J. This is an appeal from jail against the judgment of conviction. The judgment on appeal is dated 29.05.2015 of the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat, in Sessions Case No. 157 (J-J) of 2012. By the said judgment, the learned Trial Court while convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC, has sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for another 6 (six) months. 2. Mariani P.S. Case No. 94/2012 was registered under Section 302 IPC against the accused-appellant on the basis of the FIR that was lodged on 06.09.2012. The FIR was lodged by the mother of the accused-appellant (P W2). As stated in the FIR, on 6.9.2012, at about 7.30 am, when the informant was standing in her courtyard, her second son, i.e., the accused-appellant shouted that he had cut his wife, i.e., the daughter-in-law of the informant. Saying so, he went out of the house. The informant immediately entered into the house, noticed her daughter-in-law, i.e., the deceased, lying on the bed with cut injuries on her neck. 3. With the registration of the case as aforesaid, the police swung into action and carried out the investigation and, on conclusion of the same, submitted Charge-Sheet against the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC. Charge having been framed under the said section, the same was read over to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, trial commenced. 4. During trial, prosecution examined 10 (ten) witnesses including the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer. The accused-appellant was also examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Defence was that of denial of commission of the offence. 5. On the basis of the evidence adduced, the learned Trial Court having convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as aforesaid, he has preferred this appeal from jail. 6. We have heard Mr. R.M. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae. We have also heard Mr. Z Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, along with Mr. K.A. Majumdar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. We have also considered the entire materials on record. 7. The prime witness is the mother of the accused-appellant, who is PW2. 6. We have heard Mr. R.M. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae. We have also heard Mr. Z Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, along with Mr. K.A. Majumdar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. We have also considered the entire materials on record. 7. The prime witness is the mother of the accused-appellant, who is PW2. In fact, as would be evident from the evidence on record, her statement relating to the incident was also recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. However, the same was done nearly after 1 (one) month of the incident. It is also not discernible whether the said statement was exhibited during trial. Be that as it may, consistently with her statement made during investigation and so also in the FIR, she, in her deposition categorically stated as to how the incident took place. She stated that her son, i.e., the accused-appellant had married the deceased about two months back from the date of the incident. The incident occurred at about 7 A.M. while she was sweeping the clay floor of the house and the accused and the deceased were present inside the house. Just at that time, the accused-appellant came out of the house and made extra-judicial confession about killing of his wife. Getting the news, she was shocked. She became disoriented, fell down on the ground and became unconscious. On regaining consciousness, she raised alarm/hue and cry. Thereafter, she went inside the house and found the dead body of her daughter-in-law. Villagers gathered. Nothing contradictory could be brought out while she was cross-examined by the defence. 8. PW7 is the Doctor, who had examined the dead body. He in his evidence described the injuries as follows:- "A chop wound of size 19cm present on the back of the neck at the level of C7 vertebrae extending from one mastoid process to another mastoid process. All the structures-skin, muscles, soft tissues, blood vessel, bone (vertebrae), spinal cord, larynx, pharynx, oesophagus and trachea all are clearly cut and neck is attached to the rest of the body in front with a flap of skin. Clotted blood found adherent to the cut margin which is found resistant to washing with water". 9. Opining about the cause of death, he stated that the death was instantaneous as a result of injuries sustained on the neck as described. Clotted blood found adherent to the cut margin which is found resistant to washing with water". 9. Opining about the cause of death, he stated that the death was instantaneous as a result of injuries sustained on the neck as described. All the injuries were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature, caused by moderately heavy, sharp-cutting weapon. Approximate time since death was around 4-8 hours. He also opined that he had seen one dao of about 2½ ft. length and that the same could have been used to inflict injury on the neck of the deceased. 10. PW1 is the VDP Secretary of the particular tea estate. He in his deposition stated that the brother of the accused-appellant had come to his house and informed him that the accused had murdered his wife, i.e., the deceased. He was also informed by the said brother of the accused-appellant that the deceased had been killed with dao blows. Accordingly, this witness had informed the Mariani Police Station about the incident, over telephone and, thereafter, he went to the house of the accused-appellant along with the police. He further stated that the police recovered and seized the dao with which the accused-appellant had killed the deceased. The dao was recovered from the place of occurrence, i.e., the house of the accused. It appears that the dao was exhibited as Ext. 1, which the witness could recognize. 11. PW3 is the neighbour of the accused-appellant. Narrating the incident, he also stated that he had been informed by one neighbour as to how the accused-appellant had killed his wife with a dao. After getting the information, he went to the house of the accused and met his mother, i.e., PW2. According to him, PW2 told him about seeing the commission of the offence by her son. He could see the dead body inside the house. 12. PW4 is the brother of the accused-appellant, who in his deposition stated that on the day of the incident, he was present in the house. His mother, i.e., PW2 informed him as to how the accused-appellant had killed the deceased. According to this witness, PW2 had seen the entire incident. 13. PW5 in her deposition stated that she could hear PW2 shouting "Damayanti Tanti had died". She then rushed to the house of the accused-appellant and saw the dead body of the deceased with injury along with blood stains. According to this witness, PW2 had seen the entire incident. 13. PW5 in her deposition stated that she could hear PW2 shouting "Damayanti Tanti had died". She then rushed to the house of the accused-appellant and saw the dead body of the deceased with injury along with blood stains. There was also pool of blood near the dead body. She was also informed that it was the accused-appellant who after committing the offence had fled away. 14. PW6 is another brother of the accused-appellant. Narrating the incident, he also stated that it was the accused-appellant who had killed the deceased. When he met his mother, i.e., PW2, he did not see the accused appellant. He was informed by PW2 that the accused-appellant had fled away after killing his wife. 15. PW8 is a villager. According to his deposition, after getting the information, when he reached the house of the accused-appellant, he saw the dead body of the deceased with severe cut injury on her neck and she had already died before their arrival. 16. PW9 is the SI of police, who in his deposition stated about how the investigation was conducted. He also stated that one dao was seized and that the dao was used for commission of the offence by the accused-appellant. 17. PW10 is the Investigating Officer, who stated about the investigation that was carried out. 18. Above are the evidence, on the basis of which the learned Trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant. Mr. R.M. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae submits that there was no intention on the part of the accused-appellant to kill his wife. According to him, since it was suspected by the accused-appellant that the deceased had illicit relationship with another boy of her locality, he had inflicted the injury on her without the intention of killing her. Countering the said argument, Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor submits that such a stand on the part of the accused-appellant is not at all tenable inasmuch as there is no evidence on record to show that there was any such circumstance or reason for sudden provocation which resulted into the incident. 19. We have given our anxious consideration to the entire evidence and also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 20. 19. We have given our anxious consideration to the entire evidence and also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 20. On perusal of the FIR, it appears that the occurrence narrated therein by PW2 lends substantial corroboration to her deposition given during trial. As noted above, PW2 is the mother of the accused appellant. She, in her cross-examination, stated about recording of her evidence by a Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Her evidence was duly corroborated by other witnesses, more particularly, PW1, PW3, PW4 and PW6. The evidence of PW7 is also corroborative in nature. He in his deposition clearly narrated the injury sustained by the deceased. He also stated about the weapon that was used for causing the injury. According to his opinion, the deceased died instantaneously as a result of the injury sustained on the neck and it can be seen from the evidence that the weapon that had been used for committing the offence, i.e., the dao, was also recovered and seized from the place of occurrence. The nature of the injury sustained by the deceased clearly demonstrates that the accused had a clear intention to cause death of the deceased. In an overall consideration of the circumstances leading to the incident, it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence of murder by causing death of his wife. 21. Above being the position, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and the same is affirmed. Appeal stands dismissed. 22. Registry shall send down the case record immediately to the learned Court below along with the copy of this judgment and order. 23. While appreciating the services rendered by Mr. R.M. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae, it is hereby provided that he will be entitled to hearing fee of Rs. 7,500/- and the same shall be paid to him by the State Legal Services Authority upon production of the copy of this judgment and order.