Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 607 (GAU)

Suren Chawra v. State of Assam

2016-07-12

AJIT SINGH, SUMAN SHYAM

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J. Appellant Suren Chawra has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation for committing the murder of his wife Pushni Chawra. He has also been convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for causing injury to his brother-in-law Ranjit. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. Appellant was employed in the Tea Garden of Prafulla Phukan (PW 1) and Aditya Phukan (PW 2). There, he erected a shed house and lived along with his wife Pushni. Ranjit (PW 8) is younger brother of Pushni. On 1.1.2010, Ranjit went to the house of appellant to spend time on his invitation. On that day, sometime during afternoon, Ranjit saw appellant and Pushni quarrelling with each other. Ranjit, therefore, asked the cause for quarrel, which infuriated the appellant. The appellant, then, dealt a blow on the head of Ranjit with a pruning knife – Kalam Katari. Thereafter, the appellant chased Pushni with a knife in his hand. Ranjit, because of the head injury, fell unconscious. The appellant pursued Pushni and inflicted as many as three injuries on her neck with the pruning knife due to which she died. Ejahar (Exhibit 3) was lodged by Mohan Chawra (PW 9) at Police Station Teok, District Jorhat. Prabin Neog (PW 7), In-charge of the Police Station, immediately rushed to the place of occurrence, where he prepared Inquest Report (Exhibit 4) of the dead body of Pushni and arrested the appellant. During interrogation, the appellant disclosed that after committing the crime, he threw away the weapon – pruning knife in the field of Hahchora Chetia Gaon. The pruning knife was found by one Dina Orang, who handed over the same to Police. Exhibit 1 is the seizure of pruning knife. 3. Ranjit was examined by Dr. Nobin Chandra Konwar (PW 5) on 1.1.2010. He found one lacerated wound on the forehead of Ranjit. Dr. Nobin Chandra Konwar opined that the injury was simple in nature, but was caused by sharp edged weapon. According to the post mortem examination report (Exhibit 2) dated 9.8.2011 of Dr. Debojit Gogoi (PW 6), the cause of death of Pushni was due to syncope because of three cut injuries on her neck. Dr. Nobin Chandra Konwar opined that the injury was simple in nature, but was caused by sharp edged weapon. According to the post mortem examination report (Exhibit 2) dated 9.8.2011 of Dr. Debojit Gogoi (PW 6), the cause of death of Pushni was due to syncope because of three cut injuries on her neck. The doctor, in his post mortem examination report, has opined that cut injuries on the neck of Pushni were caused by sharp cutting weapon. 4. The trial court, relying upon the evidence of Ranjit and the admission of appellant during his examination as an accused, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. The trial court has also relied upon the post mortem examination report of Pushni as well as injury report of Ranjit. 5. We have carefully perused the evidence of Ranjit. As already mentioned above, he is closely related to the appellant as well as victim Pushni. Ranjit has clearly testified that on asking the appellant about the quarrel between him and Pushni, the appellant struck on his head with pruning knife. Ranjit, then, says that he saw the appellant chasing Pushni with a knife in his hand. Immediately, thereafter, dead body of Pushni with three cut injuries on her neck was discovered near the house of appellant. The evidence of Ranjit is corroborated by Dr. Nobin Chandra Konwar (PW 5), who had examined him on the date of incident. The post mortem examination report (Exhibit P2) prepared by Dr. Debojit Gogoi also establishes the fact that Pushni was attacked mercilessly with a sharp edged weapon as she died due to three cut injuries on her neck. Having regard to the evidence of Ranjit and the post mortem examination report (Exhibit P2), it can safely be inferred that after causing injury to Ranjit, the appellant chased Pushni with a pruning knife and mercilessly cut her throat due to which she died. Not only this, even the appellant during his examination as an accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has admitted that the evidence of Ranjit against him is truthful. The appellant has also admitted that he killed Pushni because she was in the habit of spending all his savings. Not only this, even the appellant during his examination as an accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has admitted that the evidence of Ranjit against him is truthful. The appellant has also admitted that he killed Pushni because she was in the habit of spending all his savings. In the fact situation of the case, we find no good ground to disbelieve the admission of appellant and use the same as evidence against him insofar as it supports the case of prosecution. 6. For these reasons, we find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.