Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 615 (GAU)

Tutukon @ Tutumoni Sarmah v. State of Assam

2016-07-13

AJIT SINGH, SUMAN SHYAM

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J. Appellant Tutukon @ Tutumoni Sarmah has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation for committing the murder of his wife Meena Devi. 2. According to the prosecution case, appellant lived in a rented one room house along with his wife Meena and two small children namely Nila Kanta (PW 4) and Bhoirabi (PW 5). The house was situated at Ward No.5, Uday Nagar. Prakash (PW 6) was the landlord of appellant. The appellant often used to quarrel with Meena after getting drunk. And this fact was known to all living in the neighbourhood. On the night of 18.1.2009, the appellant was in the house. There he first quarreled with Meena and then hacked her to death with a bathi dao. At that time, Nila Kanta and Bhoirabi were also present in the house. Bhoirabi cried for help but in vain as the neighbours thought that it was a regular affair. Even after murdering Meena, the appellant remained inside the house. He also bolted the door and window of house from inside and confined Nila Kanta and Bhoirabi in the same room. On the following morning, neighbours of appellant could guess that something serious had happened in the house of appellant. Prakash, therefore, went there but found that the door and window of the house of appellant had been shut by him. Appellant however on the asking of Prakash told him to call the police as he had murdered his wife Meena. Prakash then went to Police Station Golaghat and lodged the ejahar (Exhibit-4). Sub Inspector Ranjit Chetia (P.W.11) immediately rushed to the place of occurrence with his team and on his call, appellant opened the door of his house. In the house Ranjit Chetia found the appellant holding a bathi dao (sharp edged weapon used for slicing vegetable) in his hand. He also found the injured dead body of Meena lying on a cot and that Nila Kanta and Bhoirabi were kept confined in the room. Ranjit Chetia seized the bathi dao vide Exhibit-P/3 and arrested the appellant. 3. Dr. Ganesh Chandra Sarmah (P.W.12) had conducted the post mortem examination on the body of Meena. He found multiple sharp cut wounds on the lower part of face and front of neck. Ranjit Chetia seized the bathi dao vide Exhibit-P/3 and arrested the appellant. 3. Dr. Ganesh Chandra Sarmah (P.W.12) had conducted the post mortem examination on the body of Meena. He found multiple sharp cut wounds on the lower part of face and front of neck. The sharp cut wounds found on front side of neck, had severed wind pipe (trachea), oesophagus and major vessels of neck. According to the post mortem examination report (Exhibit-8) prepared by Dr. Ganesh Chandra Sarmah, cause of death of Meena was due to multiple cut injuries. The doctor’s evidence leads to a definite conclusion that the death of Meena was homicidal on account of multiple cut injuries on her face and neck. 4. During the trial, the appellant simply denied the prosecution case. He also did not give any explanation regarding the cause of death of Meena. The appellant, however, while being examined as an accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, answered to Question No.1 by admitting that he lived together in a one room house along with wife Meena and their two children. 5. In Ganeshlal Vs. State of Maharashtra (1992) 3 SCC 106 , the accused was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. In this case, the Supreme Court observed that when the death had occurred in the custody of accused, he is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. 6. The Supreme Court in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 has again approved the well settled principle that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and that accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 has again approved the well settled principle that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and that accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. In this case the Supreme Court has also held that where a husband is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling house where the husband also normally resided and if the husband does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it was a strong circumstance pointing that he alone was responsible for the commission of crime. 7. There is yet another decision of the Supreme Court, State of Rajashthan vs. Kashi Ram AIR 2007 SC 144 wherein it is held that when the accused was last seen with his murdered wife, he must give explanation or plead alibi in support of his innocence or else it would be a strong circumstance against him pointing towards his guilt. 8. Prakash has testified that the appellant was his tenant and when he came to know about the incident from other persons, he went to the house of appellant. According to the evidence of Prakash, he found the house was bolted from inside and on his asking, appellant told him to call the police as he had murdered his wife Meena. Prakash says that he then went to police station and lodged the ejahar whereafter, police came to the place of occurrence. Prakash has further testified that when police came appellant was made to open the door of his house and then it was found that appellant was holding a bathi dao in his hand and the injured dead body of Meena was lying on a cot. Prakash has also testified that he saw both the children of appellant crying in the room. Smt. Moina Bora (P.W.1) is neighbour of the appellant. According to her evidence, during night she had heard appellant quarrelling with Meena on which she advised him not to beat her because his children would get scared. Prakash has also testified that he saw both the children of appellant crying in the room. Smt. Moina Bora (P.W.1) is neighbour of the appellant. According to her evidence, during night she had heard appellant quarrelling with Meena on which she advised him not to beat her because his children would get scared. Moina Bora has corroborated the evidence of Prakash that in the morning police came to the house of appellant whereafter, it was found that the injured dead body of Meena was lying on a cot and appellant was also present in the house along with children Nila Kanta and Bhoirabi. Nila Kanta and Bhoirabi have also testified in their examination in chief that in the night their father (appellant) after quarrelling with their mother (Meena) had killed her with a bathi dao. These witnesses being the children of appellant, however, in their cross-examination denied having seen him killing Meena. But both of them have stood firm on the point that during night only they along with appellant and Meena were in the house. Smt. Gurmit Kaur (P.W.7) is neighbour of the appellant. According to her evidence, on the night of incident she had heard Bhoirabi crying for help in front of the house of Moina Bora (P.W.1), but on the threat of appellant, Bhoirabi returned to her house. Similar is the evidence of Md. Abdul Muktalib (P.W.8) who too is the neighbour of appellant. 9. It is, thus, established that appellant was found in his house with the bathi dao where injured dead body of Meena was also lying. Appellant has not given any explanation for the cause of death of Meena either after his arrest or during his trial. Mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation regarding the cause of death of Meena, under the facts and circumstances of the case, does not help him in any manner. On the contrary, it leads to the conclusion that he alone is responsible for the commission of murder of his wife Meena. Besides this, the evidence of Moina Bora (P.W.1), Nila Kanta Sarmah (P.W.4), Bhoirabi Devi (P.W.5), Prakash (P.W.6), GurmitKaur (P.W.7), Md. Abdul Muktalib (P.W.8) and Ranjit Chetia (P.W.11) also establishes the prosecution case against appellant beyond reasonable doubt that Meena was hacked to death by him with a bathidao. 10. For these reasons, we find no merit in this appeal. Besides this, the evidence of Moina Bora (P.W.1), Nila Kanta Sarmah (P.W.4), Bhoirabi Devi (P.W.5), Prakash (P.W.6), GurmitKaur (P.W.7), Md. Abdul Muktalib (P.W.8) and Ranjit Chetia (P.W.11) also establishes the prosecution case against appellant beyond reasonable doubt that Meena was hacked to death by him with a bathidao. 10. For these reasons, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.