Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 649 (GAU)

Manab Rabha v. State of Assam

2016-07-19

AJIT SINGH, SUMAN SHYAM

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J. The sole appellant Manab Rabha has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation. 2. The victim of the incident was Pradip Boro. He was aged about 40 years on the date of incident. He was also father in law of the appellant. 3. According to the prosecution case, the appellant and his father in law Pradip Boro lived in the same village. On 12.8.2008, at about 8 PM, Pradip Boro went to the house of appellant. There some quarrel took place between the appellant and Pradip Boro. The appellant, then, struck a blow with an iron rod on the abdomen of Pradip Boro. Co-villager Binod Boro brought Pradip Boro to the latter’s house. But, since the condition of Pradip Boro was not good, he was taken to Boko Hospital on the following morning. From Boko Hospital Pradip Boro was sent to Gauhati Medical College & Hospital for better treatment, but he died around 11 AM. Ejahar of the incident was lodged by Phuleswari Boro PW 1, mother of Pradip Boro. 4. Dr. Manoj Kumar Singha PW 11 conducted the post mortem examination on the body of Pradip Boro. The doctor on dissection found peritoneum contusion around the umbilicus which was infected and adherent with the momentum. Cavity also contained reddish coloured fluid and spleen was lacerated. The doctor opined that injury was ante mortem and caused by blunt force impact. The doctor also opined that injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. His post mortem examination report is exhibit 8. 5. During the trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. 6. The trial court, essentially, relying upon the evidence of Santiram Rabha (PW 8) as well as the post mortem examination report convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 7. Santiram Rabha is an eye witness to the incident. He also lives in the neighbourhood of the appellant. Santiram Rabha has testified that a quarrel took place between the appellant and Pradip Boro whereafter the appellant dealt a blow on the person of Pradip Boro with an iron rod. Nothing has been brought out in the cross examination of this witness to suggest why he would falsely implicate the appellant. Santiram Rabha has testified that a quarrel took place between the appellant and Pradip Boro whereafter the appellant dealt a blow on the person of Pradip Boro with an iron rod. Nothing has been brought out in the cross examination of this witness to suggest why he would falsely implicate the appellant. The evidence of Santiram Rabha also stands fully corroborated by the post mortem examination report Exhibit 8 prepared by Dr. Manoj Kumar Singha. In view of the evidence of Santiram, the learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed the prosecution story which is well founded and fully proved. We accordingly confirm the finding of the trial court that appellant alone was the perpetrator of crime. 8. The learned counsel for appellant has, however, argued that even accepting the prosecution version in totality, it cannot be said that appellant had the intention to murder his father in law Pradip Boro and as such, the offence will 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 in the house of appellant on a sudden quarrel without any pre-meditation. The evidence of Santiram reveals that appellant had dealt only one blow with an iron rod on the abdomen of Pradip Boro. Also, if the appellant had any intention to commit the murder of Pradip Boro, he would have dealt more blows and that too, on vital part, such as, head etc. 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 Pradip Boro. It can, however, be safely held that he had the knowledge that by giving a blow on the chest of Pradip Boro, the latter would die. 9. Consequently, we set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him thereunder and instead convict him under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and award a sentence of 6 (six) years. The sentence of fine is, however, affirmed. The appellant is in jail. He be released on his undergoing the jail sentence awarded by us, if not wanted in any other case. 10. The sentence of fine is, however, affirmed. The appellant is in jail. He be released on his undergoing the jail sentence awarded by us, if not wanted in any other case. 10. With the above modification, the appeal is partly allowed.