Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 640 (GAU)

Maghen Moran v. State of Assam

2016-07-18

AJIT SINGH, SUMAN SHYAM

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J. The sole appellant Maghen Moran has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulation for committing the murders of Sarbon Tanti and Naresh Mura. He has also been convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation for causing grievous injury to Manoj Mura. The jail sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. According to the prosecution case, Manoj Mura (CW 1) and Fulumoni Mura (CW 2) are husband and wife. They lived along with their two daughters Asha Mura (PW 3) and Malini (PW 4). Sorbon and Naresh were close relation of Manoj and Fulumoni. They also lived in their neighbourhood but across the road. On 7.6.2009, sometime in the late evening, Asha and Malini were quarrelling over domestic dispute in their own house. The appellant somehow managed to see this and came to them. He then caught hold both of them by their hair and dashed their heads against each other. Manoj did not approve this conduct of the appellant and dealt a blow to him with a stick. The appellant left the place angrily by saying that his name was Maghen. After sometime, around 7 PM, the appellant returned with a dao in his hand and dealt one blow with that dao on the head of Manoj. Thereafter, he also dealt blows to Sarbon and Naresh with the same dao and fled. 3. The incident was witnessed by Fulumoni. She naturally called for help, due to which, people gathered at the place of occurrence. Sarbon, Naresh and Manoj were taken to Doomdooma Hospital, where Sarbon and Naresh were declared dead. Since the condition of Manoj was serious, he was shifted to Assam Medical College Hospital, Dibrugarh. There, he was examined by Dr. Anupal Deka (PW 14), who found one incised wound on the right side of his face and two fractures in mandible. The Injury Report of Dr. Anupal Deka is (Exhibit 8). According to the Report, injury caused to Manoj was by a sharp edged weapon and he was discharged after one month i.e. on 7.7.2009. Fulumoni lodged the ejahar (Exhibit 7) at Post Outpost Jutulibari, which was forwarded to Police Station Doomdooma. The Injury Report of Dr. Anupal Deka is (Exhibit 8). According to the Report, injury caused to Manoj was by a sharp edged weapon and he was discharged after one month i.e. on 7.7.2009. Fulumoni lodged the ejahar (Exhibit 7) at Post Outpost Jutulibari, which was forwarded to Police Station Doomdooma. Thereafter, police prepared the Inquest Reports Exhibits 5 & 6 of the dead bodies of Naresh and Sarbon, respectively. The police also arrested the appellant on 8.6.2009 from Jutulibari Tea Estate. 4. On 8.6.2009, Dr. Hemen Buragohain (PW 1) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Sarbon. He found an incised wound over left side of the neck which had cut carotid artery. The doctor also found one lacerated wound over dorsal surface of left hand. According to the post mortem examination report Exhibit 1 of Dr. Hemen Buragohain, the cause of death of Sarbon was due to injuries sustained by him, which were ante mortem in nature. Dr. Buragohain, on the same date, also conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Naresh and found penetrating wounds over left side of his chest which had punctured the heart. Dr. Buragohain, in his post mortem examination Report (Exhibit 2), opined that Naresh died due to injuries caused to him. 5. On 11.6.2009, the police recovered the dao used in the commission of crime from a garbage ditch pursuant to the disclosure statement of appellant. The dao was seized in the presence of witnesses Utpal Moran (PW 6), Indrajit Moran (PW7) and Kuladhar Moran (PW 8). The seizure of dao is Exhibit 3. 6. During the trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and did not examine any witness in defence. The Trial Court having regard to the evidence of witnesses examined by the prosecution and the medical evidence brought on record convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and State, we are of the opinion that the appeal has no merit and deserves to the dismissed. 8. We have carefully perused the evidence of Fulumoni. She has deposed that on the date of incident, at about 5 PM, Asha and Malini were quarrelling in the house and the appellant came from somewhere, whereafter, he dashed their heads against each other. 8. We have carefully perused the evidence of Fulumoni. She has deposed that on the date of incident, at about 5 PM, Asha and Malini were quarrelling in the house and the appellant came from somewhere, whereafter, he dashed their heads against each other. According to the evidence of Fulumoni, Manoj then struck the appellant with a piece of firewood which was lying in the courtyard. This angered the appellant, who left the place saying that his name was Maghen. Fulumoni has testified that around 7 PM, the appellant returned with a dao and dealt a blow with it on the neck of Manoj. Fulumoni has further deposed that appellant dealt a blow each to Sorban and Naresh before running away. Fulumoni admits to have lodged the ejahar Exhibit 7. Similar is the evidence of injured Manoj. He too has testified that the appellant had dashed the heads of Asha and Malini against each other when they were quarrelling and he had given a kick blow in retaliation to the appellant. Manoj has also testified that after sometime, the appellant returned with a dao and dealt a blow on his beck and thereafter, he dealt a blow each to Sorban and Naresh before running away. Manoj was examined by the Trial Court as Court Witness. Nothing has been brought out in the cross examination of Fulumoni and Manoj to discredit their testimony. In fact, the evidence of Fulumoni and Manoj is substantially corroborated by the post mortem examination reports Exhibit 1 and 2 of Sorban and Naresh as well as Injury Report Exhibit 8 of Manoj. It is also to be noted that in the prompt ejahar lodged by Fulumoni, the name of appellant has been categorically mentioned as the assailant of Manoj, Sorban and Naresh. 9. It is true that Asha in her evidence claims to have seen the appellant but her testimony cannot be relied upon. This we say so because Fulumoni and Malini have deposed that when the appellant returned with a dao and had dealt blows with it to Manoj, Sorban and Naresh, Asha and Malini had gone to the house of their Uncle and were not at home. This we say so because Fulumoni and Malini have deposed that when the appellant returned with a dao and had dealt blows with it to Manoj, Sorban and Naresh, Asha and Malini had gone to the house of their Uncle and were not at home. But the evidence of Asha and Malini establishes the fact that appellant had dashed their heads against each other, when they were quarrelling in their own house and Manoj had hit the appellant with a stick whereafter he left the house in anger. 10. There is yet another evidence against the appellant in the form of recovery of dao from a garbage ditch. The recovery was made by Ranjan Doley on 9.6.2009 pursuant to the disclosure statement of appellant in the presence of witnesses Utpal Moran, Indrajit Moran and Juladhar Moran. According to the evidence of Ranjan Doley, he had prepared the seizure of dao Exhibit 3. 11. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code is just and proper. We find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.