Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 189 (GAU)

POWAL BORA v. STATE OF ASSAM

2015-02-18

B.K.SHARMA

body2015
ORDER (ORAL) 1. Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned counsel for the accused appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. PP, Assam. This appeal has arisen out of the judgment dated 23/03/2009 of the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Sessions Case No. 5/2008 convicting the accused appellant under Section 326 and 307 IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for 5 (five) years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default further RI for 6 (six) months for the offence under Section 326 IPC. So far as the offence under Section 307 IPC is concerned, he has been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and also to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for another one year. Both the sentences would run concurrently and the amount of fine is to be paid to the victim. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the victim at that relevant point of time (15/10/2007) was aged only 22 years. On the date of occurrence he was fishing in a pond near his residence by using a fishing rod. The accused appellant suddenly attacked him from behind with a dao. Thereafter, although the victim tried to resist but he was inflicted with further injuries with the dao. When the victim raised hue and cry, the accused dropped his dao and engaged himself into a duel and in the process gave a bite upon the right ear of the victim. Sustaining injuries, the victim was also about to lose his consciousness. Hearing hue and cry, the parents of the victim immediately arrived at the place of occurrence and the accused ran away leaving behind his dao. The victim was first taken to his residence and a doctor was summoned and thereafter on being referred to hospital, he was admitted at Jorhat Civil Hospital where he underwent treatment for about 10 days. Thereafter, he was sent to Dibrugarh Medical College where he underwent treatment for about 8 days. 3. The Doctor (PW-9) who examined the injured victim opined as follows :- “1. Cut injury in the left auxilla 5cm x 2 cm depth fresh would horizontal. 2. Cut injury of left side of chest 2 cm length. ½ cm. depth horizontal fresh would. 3. Cut 1 cm length over left side of skull. 4. Complete removal of a part of right ear. 5. Cut injury 1 cm. Cut injury in the left auxilla 5cm x 2 cm depth fresh would horizontal. 2. Cut injury of left side of chest 2 cm length. ½ cm. depth horizontal fresh would. 3. Cut 1 cm length over left side of skull. 4. Complete removal of a part of right ear. 5. Cut injury 1 cm. over left cheek”. He opined that injuries sustained by the victim over right ear, right auxilla, over left side of chest, left cheek and over left side of skull were all grievous injuries.. 4. During trial, the prosecution examined 10 (ten) witnesses and the accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. PW-1 Lila Ram Nath in his deposition stated that while he was going towards the river embankment, he had seen the victim fishing with a rod. He also saw the accused appellant giving dao blows on the victim. He rushed to the place of occurrence and the accused fled away. PW-2 is the scribe who wrote the FIR filed by the mother of the victim. 5. PW-3 is the victim who in his deposition narrated the incident. He stated as to how the accused appellant inflicted dao injuries on him. Nothing contrary could be brought out in his in his cross examination. PW-4 is the mother of the accused who in her deposition narrating the incident stated that she had seen her son fishing in the pond with a rod. At one point of time, she heard hue and cry from her son. She ran to the place of occurrence and found her son lying in a pool of blood. She also witnessed the accused running away towards his home. She further stated that she was reported by her injured son as to how he was attacked by the accused appellant with a dao. 6. PW-6 also stated as to how the accused appellant after inflicting the injuries on the victim ran towards his home. He saw the victim lying in a pool of blood. When he attended the victim, he told him about the injuries inflicted on him by the accused appellant. PW-7 also narrated same thing and so also the PW-8. PW-10 is the I.O. who in his deposition, generally stated about the investigation that was carried out by him. 7. On perusal of the evidence on record, no discrepancy or contradictions are possible to be noted. PW-7 also narrated same thing and so also the PW-8. PW-10 is the I.O. who in his deposition, generally stated about the investigation that was carried out by him. 7. On perusal of the evidence on record, no discrepancy or contradictions are possible to be noted. All the prosecution witnesses are reliable and trustworthy. There is also no inconsistency between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence. 8. Above being the position, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction. Mr. A.M. Bora, learned counsel for the accused-appellant, however, submits that having regard to the age of the accused appellant which is now above 70 years, the sentence imposed on him in respect of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is required to be reduced. He submits that the accused appellant has undergone imprisonment nearly 7 (seven) years counting both during trial and after the impugned judgment of conviction. 9. At the time of committing the offence, the accused appellant was aged about 65 years. So by now he must be above 70 years of age. He has been sentenced to undergo R.I. 5 (five) years in respect of the offence under Section 326 IPC and 10 (ten) years in respect of the offence under Section 307 IPC. I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the period of sentence i.e. RI for 10 years for the offence under Section 307 IPC is reduced to RI for 7 years. However, as regard the sentence under Section 326 IPC and also the fine imposed in respect of both the offences i.e. 326 and 307 IPC, the same shall remain un-interfered. The period already undergone shall be set off from the modified sentence. 10. The Criminal Appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above. 11. Before parting with the case record it is hereby provided that the victim Pronob Bora shall be entitled to compensation as per the provisions of Assam Victim Compensation Scheme, 2012 notified vide notification dated 18/10/2012 of the Government of Assam in the Political Department. The jurisdictional Legal Services Authority shall do the needful as per the procedure laid down in the said notification towards payment of compensation to the victim as expeditiously as possible. 12. The jurisdictional Legal Services Authority shall do the needful as per the procedure laid down in the said notification towards payment of compensation to the victim as expeditiously as possible. 12. The Registry shall send down the LCR to the learned Court below along with a copy of this judgment and order and also another copy to the jurisdictional Legal Services Authority for doing the needful.