Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1153 (GAU)

Mohan Kumar Rai v. State of Assam

2016-12-20

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. Appellant Mohan Kumar Rai has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.3000/- with default stipulation. He has also been convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month. 2. The victim of the incident was Siba Chetry alias Sibu, aged about 15 years. 3. According to the prosecution case, Maya Debi Rai (PW-2) worked in Tipok Colliery and lived in her house situated in the Colliery itself. The appellant is her elder son. He too lived with Maya Debi in the same house. Since the brother of Maya Debi had died, his son Sibu also lived with her. Pinki Chetry (PW-3) is daughter of another brother of Maya Debi and she was also staying in the house of Maya Debi since one month prior to the date of incident. On 12.9.2011 around 7 a.m. Maya Debi had left her house to attend duty in the Colliery. At that time, Siba was arranging his bed whereas Pinki was sweeping the floor of house. The appellant asked Siba to apply ointment on his burn injury. Siba for some reason did not respond promptly. The appellant felt so infuriated that he caused multiple injuries to Siba with a dao, as a result of which, he died on the spot. Pinki tried to intervene but the appellant assaulted her also with the same dao. Pinki received one cut injury over her left arm on dorsal side. Pinki then naturally raised hue and cry and hearing the commotion, co-villagers rushed to the place of occurrence, to whom, she narrated the incident. Likewise, Maya Debi was also informed and on her reaching home, Pinki disclosed that the appellant had cut Siba with a dao. Krishna Rai (PW-1) is elder brother of appellant and he lived separately. He was informed about the incident by Kamal Subba over phone and when he reached the place of occurrence, Pinki narrated the incident to him also. Krishna then made ejahar Exhibit-1 against the appellant at Police Out Post Ledo falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Margherita. 4. The incident was investigated by Sub-Inspector Dulal Mahanta (PW-13). He was informed about the incident by Kamal Subba over phone and when he reached the place of occurrence, Pinki narrated the incident to him also. Krishna then made ejahar Exhibit-1 against the appellant at Police Out Post Ledo falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Margherita. 4. The incident was investigated by Sub-Inspector Dulal Mahanta (PW-13). He made the inquest report, Exhibit-2 of the dead body which was found lying in the house of Maya Debi. He also sent the body for postmortem examination. He then referred Pinki for medical examination. Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharjee (PW-11) conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Siba. He found seven incised wounds and opined that Siba died due to injuries which were ante-mortem. His postmortem report is Exhibit-5. Pinki was examined by Dr.Mousumi Gogoi (PW-12). She found one cut injury on her left elbow over the dorsal side which was simple in nature. Her injury report in this regard is Exhibit-9. Dulal Mahanta arrested the appellant on 13.9.2011. He also recovered one dao at the instance of appellant from the house of Krishna Bahadur Thapa (PW-7). The seizure memo of dao is Exhibit-4. Krishna Bahadur Thapa and Tulsi Sharma (PW-10) are witnesses to the seizure of dao. 5. During trial, at the stage of framing of charge, appellant denied his guilt, but later, while being examined as an accused, he admitted having cut Siba with a dao. The appellant, however, denied causing any injury to Pinki. 6. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 7. Pinki is sole eye-witness to the incident. She is closely related not only to the appellant, but also to deceased Siba. She was also injured in the incident and, hence, her presence at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. She has very clearly testified that appellant had asked Siba to apply ointment on his burn injuries to which, he refused. According to Pinki, the appellant got so furiated that he dealt a dao blow on the neck of Siba due to which he died. Pinki has further testified that when she tried to intervene and offer resistance, she sustained cut injury on her left hand. According to her evidence, she then raised hue and cry, hearing which, co-villagers came to the place of occurrence, to whom, she narrated the incident. Pinki has further testified that when she tried to intervene and offer resistance, she sustained cut injury on her left hand. According to her evidence, she then raised hue and cry, hearing which, co-villagers came to the place of occurrence, to whom, she narrated the incident. Pinki has stood firm in her evidence and nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination to discredit her. Her evidence is also substantially corroborated by the post mortem examination report exhibit-5 of Siba. Even her injury report, exhibit-9 corroborates her evidence. 8. Krishna Bahadur Thapa (PW-7) and Maya Debi Rai (PW-1) have testified that when they reached the place of occurrence, they saw Siba lying dead with injuries on his body. According to them, on their asking, Pinki narrated that appellant had killed Siba. Bahadur Pahari (PW-4), Chitrada Bora (PW-5), Asha Bhumij (PW-6) and Krishna Bahadur Thapa (PW-7) are co-villagers. All these witnesses in one voice have stated that on hearing hue and cry, they rushed to the place of occurrence and on their asking, Pinki disclosed that appellant had killed Siba. These witnesses also fully corroborate the evidence of Pinki. After carefully scanning the evidence brought on record, we find Pinki to be reliable and truthful witness. As seen above, the appellant also while being examined as an accused admitted that he had cut the neck of Siba with a dao. Even Sub-Inspector Dulal Mahanta recovered one dao on the disclosure statement of appellant from the house of Krishna Bahadur Thapa (PW-7). Krishna has confirmed the seizure of dao vide Exhibit-4. 9. For these reasons, we have no iota of doubt that appellant alone was the perpetrator of crime. He not only committed the murder of Siba with a dao, but also caused simple injury to Pinki, when she offered resistance. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.