Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 642 (GAU)

Bipul Bhuyan v. State of Assam

2016-07-18

AJIT SINGH, SUMAN SHYAM

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J. The sole appellant Bipul Bhuyan has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation. 2. The victim of the incident was Rameshwari, aged 40 years. She was wife of the appellant and lived together with him. At the time of incident, she was aged 40 years. 3. According to the prosecution case, on 18.4.2011 at about 4 PM, the appellant and Rameshwari had a quarrel over some issue in their house because of which the appellant dealt a blow on her head with a split bamboo. The blow proved to be fatal and caused the death of Rameshwari. Boglu Bhuyan (PW 1) lodged the ejahar Exhibit 4 at Police Station Jorhat. The police came to the house of appellant and seized the split bamboo. The police also prepared the Inquest of the body of Rameshwari which was lying in the house. 4. On the post mortem examination conducted by Dr. Dipok Borah (PW 7) one cut injury over right parietal region was found on the dead body of Rameshwari. His post mortem examination report is Exhibit 3. According to the opinion of Dr. Borah the cause of death of Rameshwari was due to head injury. 5. The appellant during his examination as an accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has admitted that he dealt a solitary blow on the head of Rameshwari because she was drunk and had quarreled with him. The appellant has also stated that he did not apprehend that the blow would cause the death of Rameshwari. 6. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 7. Admittedly the injured dead body of Rameshwari was found in the house of appellant. The appellant also lived in the same house. The appellant has admitted that he had dealt a blow on the head of Rameshwari but not with an intention to cause her death. According to him since she had quarreled with him and had consumed liquor he retaliated by giving a blow with a split bamboo. We are thus convinced that appellant alone was the perpetrator of the crime and confirm the finding of the trial court in this regard. 8. According to him since she had quarreled with him and had consumed liquor he retaliated by giving a blow with a split bamboo. We are thus convinced that appellant alone was the perpetrator of the crime and confirm the finding of the trial court in this regard. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has however argued that even accepting the prosecution version in totality, the offence against the appellant would not be under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but under Part I or Part II of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. We find sufficient force in this submission. The incident took place suddenly over a quarrel between the appellant and Rameshwari. The appellant did not use any weapon in assaulting Rameshwari. He in a fit of anger dealt a blow on her head with a split bamboo which is commonly kept in the house. Unfortunately, the blow proved fatal and she died. Having regard to the circumstances in which the incident took place particularly the act of appellant we are unable to believe that he had any intention to cause the death of Rameshwari. It can safely be held that he had the knowledge that by giving such a blow on the head of Rameshwari, she would die. 9. Consequently, we set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him and instead we convict him under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and award a sentence of 6 (six) years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo 6(six) months rigorous imprisonment. 10. With the above modification, the appeal is partly allowed.