Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1008 (GAU)

Debari Orang v. Jaigu Orang @ Joigu Orang

2016-11-17

AJIT SINGH, KALYAN RAI SURANA

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (Ajit Singh, C.J.) The complainant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 19.10.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, whereby he has acquitted the respondent of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. According to the appellant, on 6.1.2008 respondent took her brother Gyan Das on his motorcycle to Hukani Gaon. And on way respondent caused serious injuries to Gyan Das. After causing injuries, respondent fled from the place of occurrence. Finding Gyan Das in an injured condition, the police first carried him to Rajgarh State Dispensary and then to Medical College where he died. Thereafter, on 15.6.2008 respondent came to the house of Gyan Das and confessed his guilt before the family members. The appellant, therefore, lodged the complaint on 16.6.2008 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, which was sent for police investigation. The police after investigation submitted its report that Gyan Das in fact died due to vehicular accident. The appellant however raised objection to the police report whereafter the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial. 3. In the absence of any eye witness, the appellant based her case solely on the oral dying declaration of Gyan Das purported to have been made before the family members while being carried to the hospital in a police vehicle. According to the appellant, Gyan Das in his dying declaration alleged that he was assaulted by the respondent. 4. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence of appellant and her witnesses, found material discrepancies in their version regarding dying declaration. The Trial Court also took note of the fact that Gyan Das was carried to hospital in a police van and it was not possible for all the 9 witnesses of dying declaration to be in that vehicle. Not only this, the Trial Court even took note of the fact that although dying declaration was alleged to have been made against the respondent on the date of incident itself, no ejahar was made at the police station either by the appellant or any other witness. Also in the complaint filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate after 6 months from the date of incident, the appellant did not mention about the oral dying declaration of Gyan Das against the respondent. 5. Also in the complaint filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate after 6 months from the date of incident, the appellant did not mention about the oral dying declaration of Gyan Das against the respondent. 5. We have heard the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and we are of the considered view that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence in acquitting the respondent. If Gyan Das had really made the dying declaration, the appellant or any other witness would have surely lodged the FIR at the police station. The police after investigation submitted its report that Gyan Das had sustained injuries in a vehicular accident. The Doctor has confirmed that injuries found on the body of Gyan Das could have been caused due to vehicular accident. As mentioned above, even in the complaint filed after six months from the date of incident, the appellant did not mention even a word regarding dying declaration. It was for the first time while giving evidence, the appellant and her witnesses stated about dying declaration which has rightly been disbelieved by the Trial Court. The impugned judgment is well founded and unassailable. No ground for interference is made out. 6. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.