Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 659 (GAU)

Raju Proja v. State of Assam

2016-07-20

AJIT SINGH, SUMAN SHYAM

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J. The sole appellant Raju Proja has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation. 2. The victim of the incident was Sonaram Proja, aged 55 years. 3. According to the prosecution case, Sonaram was maternal uncle of the appellant and they both lived in the same locality. On 2.6.2010, at about 6 PM, the appellant went to the house of Sonaram and committed his murder by giving a blow on his neck with a dao. Fulmoni Proja, PW 5, wife of Sonaram, lodged the ejahar Exhibit 2 at Police Station Bihubar, District Sivasagar. Thereafter, police came to the place of occurrence and prepared inquest report Exhibit 6 of the dead body of Sonaram. The police also seized one dao Material Exhibit 1 from the house of Sonaram pursuant to the disclosure statement of appellant. 4. Dr. Ranjit Kumar Hazarika PW 1 conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Sonaram. He found larynx and trachea completely severed at C3 and C4 vertebra level. He also found C3 and C4 vertebra fractured obliquely. He even found an incised looking wound present in the neck which had sliced all structures upto C3 and C4 vertebra. The doctor, in his post mortem examination report exhibit 1, opined that Sonaram died due to neck injury which was ante mortem and caused by sharp cutting weapon like dao. The doctor further opined that it was possible to cause the injury with the seized dao. 5. During investigation, the police referred the appellant before the Magistrate for recording his confession. And Smti. Audri Bhattacharjee, PW 8, who was Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sivasagar recorded the confessional statement exhibit 4 of appellant under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. The appellant, while being examined as an accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,again admitted that he alone had caused the death of Sonaram. 7. The trial court, relying upon the abovementioned confessional statement of appellant as well as his admission while being examined as an accused about committing the death of Sonaram, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. 8. 7. The trial court, relying upon the abovementioned confessional statement of appellant as well as his admission while being examined as an accused about committing the death of Sonaram, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the finding of the trial court that appellant caused the death of Sonaram by giving one blow on his neck with a dao. His only contention is that even accepting the prosecution version in totality, an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out and the appellant at the best can be punished only for an offence under Part I or Part II of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the learned counsel, the case at hand is not of pre-meditated murder as the incident took place on the spur of moment and there was sudden and grave provocation by Sonaram which resulted in infliction of the injury on his body. The learned counsel has submitted that the case would be covered under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, defended the conviction and sentence of the appellant as passed by the trial court. 9. To determine whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian penal Code is legal and proper, we deem it appropriate to examine the confessional statement exhibit 4 of the appellant which reads as under:- “My mother died in 1990 while father in 1992. My maternal uncle Sonaram Proja transferred the landed property belonged to my parents to his name. He also sold the plinth of our house. Even he wanted to drive me out of the house. He picked up quarrel, consuming liquor. After returning home from work on the day of occurrence, I came to know that my maternal uncle consuming liquor had been abusing my 9 years old daughter in the manner – “Does your father not look after you? As you come to our house in the evening to have fish, meat etc.” I went to maternal uncle’s home as usual. He was in the kitchen. I said to him, “Mama (maternal uncle), why does you always keep on shouting at the time of my return home from work?” Then he lifted the dao of their house. As you come to our house in the evening to have fish, meat etc.” I went to maternal uncle’s home as usual. He was in the kitchen. I said to him, “Mama (maternal uncle), why does you always keep on shouting at the time of my return home from work?” Then he lifted the dao of their house. I did not take any dao with me from my home. I snatched the dao away from maternal uncle. Thereafter, I dealt maternal uncle a blow in the neck with the said dao. The neck got cut. At that time I lost my conscience.” 10. A bare reading of the above quoted confessional statement reveals that Sonaram was maternal Uncle of the appellant. And Sonaram had transferred landed property of appellant’s parents in his name. Not only this, Sonaram had sold the plinth of the appellant’s house and was taking steps to drive him out. Sonaram even picked up a quarrel with the appellant after consuming liquor. On the date of incident, when the appellant returned home after day’s work in the evening, he came to know that Sonaram after consuming liquor had abused his 9 years old daughter by saying that her father (appellant) was not looking after her due to which she visited his (Sonaram) house in the evening to have fish, meat etc. This behaviour of Sonaram naturally infuriated the appellant. And yet the appellant went to the house of Sonaram to lodge his protest without carrying any weapon. At that time, Sonaram was in the kitchen. When the appellant asked him why he always shouted at him on his return from work, Sonaram lifted a dao. The appellant, then, in the heat of passion, snatched the dao from Sonaram and dealt a blow on his neck with it. The neck injury proved fatal due to which Sonaram died on the spot. The body of Sonaram was found in the kitchen. Dao was also seized from the place of occurrence. Fulmoni Proja (wife of Sonaram) has testified that she saw the appellant coming out from the house with his 9 years old daughter Lakhi. These facts fully corroborate the confession of appellant. The body of Sonaram was found in the kitchen. Dao was also seized from the place of occurrence. Fulmoni Proja (wife of Sonaram) has testified that she saw the appellant coming out from the house with his 9 years old daughter Lakhi. These facts fully corroborate the confession of appellant. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, provocation caused to the appellant must be held to be both grave and sudden and the present case is apparently covered by Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment are set aside. Instead, he is convicted under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The sentence of fine is however affirmed.