Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 674 (GAU)

Butan Kujur v. State of Assam

2016-07-22

AJIT SINGH, SUMAN SHYAM

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Suman Shyam, J. 1. The sole appellant Butan Kujur has assailed the judgment and order dated 02-07-2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Golaghat in Sessions Case No. 236/2012 whereby, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for killing his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment besides paying a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15-10-2012 in between 09:00 and 10:00 p.m. the appellant had grievously assaulted his wife Manisha Kujur on the road and thereafter, came to the house of her paternal uncle Bubai Minz Oran with severe injuries in her face and hand. Manisha Kujur, who was critically injured, spent the night in the house of Bubai Minz Oran but the assault made on her by the appellant proved fatal and she died in the next morning in the house of her uncle. According to the prosecution, the death of Manisha Kujur had resulted from the grievous injuries inflicted on her by the appellant on the previous night. 3. Sri Bubai Minz Oran, the paternal uncle of the deceased, had lodged an ejahar with the Uriamghat Police Station, Golaghat district on 16-10-2012 reporting the said incident. Based on the ejahar, Uriamghat P.S. Case No. 48/2012 was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and an investigation was started. On completion of the investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted and made to face trial. At the conclusion of the trial the Sessions Judge, Golaghat had convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 4. The prosecution case is based on the evidence of two eye witnesses viz. Smti. Somarani Mura (PW-3) and Smti. Ailing Sinku (PW-4), both of whom have claimed to have seen the appellant assault his deceased wife on the previous night. Somarani has deposed before the court that on the date of the incident she heard sound of beating on the road and thereafter, saw that a woman was being assaulted by her husband. The witness had testified that she saw the incident by flashing a torch and further confirmed that the appellant Butan Kujur was the person who was beating the woman. 5. Smti. The witness had testified that she saw the incident by flashing a torch and further confirmed that the appellant Butan Kujur was the person who was beating the woman. 5. Smti. Ailing Sinku (PW-4) has also deposed that on the night of the incident, hearing thudding sound, she came out and in the glow of her torch light, she had seen the appellant beating his wife. Ailing Sinku (PW-4) had also confirmed that Somarani Mura (PW-2) and she were there together at the place of occurrence and that she had seen the injuries on the face of the woman. The witness has further testified that the time of the incident was about 10:00 p.m. 6. The inquest report (Ext-2) indicates presence of injury marks in the face and head caused by beating. Post Mortem Examination was conducted on the dead body of Manisha Kujur on 17-10-2012.The report of the Post Mortem Examination (Ext-1) indicates the following injuries in the dead body :- "Incised wound on right fore-head, 5 x 0.5 x 0.5 c.m. Lacerated injury on lower lip. Bone deep cut wound on penetrating area on lift right zygoratic area of the face. Incised wound with fracture on left mandiblem area on left mandibler area. Incised wound on forehead (right). Skull fracture on parietal vital area of the skull, Vertebrae healthy. Ruptured on right frontal parietal area. Brain large haemotoma on frontal parietal area was under congestion of whole brain." 7. Dr. P.K. Medhi who had conducted the Post Mortem Examination had been examined by the prosecution side as PW-1. Dr. Medhi had opined that the cause of death is shock, haemorrhage and head injury sustained by the deceased. From the nature of injuries suffered by the deceased it can be safely presumed that such injuries had been inflicted by the appellant both with the knowledge and intention to kill her. 8. Md. Sirajudin Ahmed (PW-3), the Secretary of the VDP unit has deposed that he came to know about the incident from the VDP personnel during the night itself. According to PW-3, the villagers had come to know that the appellant had assaulted his wife to death from a woman named Somarani Mura (PW-2). Sirajuddin Ahmed had further deposed that he had seen the body lying in a gory state with injuries in her head and face. According to PW-3, the villagers had come to know that the appellant had assaulted his wife to death from a woman named Somarani Mura (PW-2). Sirajuddin Ahmed had further deposed that he had seen the body lying in a gory state with injuries in her head and face. When the appellant was asked about the incident he had stated that the woman might have fallen down. 9. During the examination of the accused by the court, although he had denied his involvement in the incident, yet, the appellant had stated that his wife might have sustained injuries. The appellant was with his wife in the previous evening. However, there is no explanation as to how his wife had sustained such grievous injuries while she was in the company of the appellant. 10. The two eye witnesses viz. Somarani and Ailing have categorically deposed that they had seen the appellant assault his wife on the day of the incident. During cross-examination, nothing could be brought out so as to discredit the two eye-witnesses. The Post-Mortem Report (Ext-1) and the testimony of the Doctor (PW-1) fully corroborate the injuries which had evidently resulted from the assault made by the appellant on his wife. From the testimony of Sirajuddin, it is further established that the deceased Manisha had died the next morning in her uncle's house due to the injuries suffered by her in the face and the head. The witness has further deposed that he come to know from the VDP personals, on being told by Somarani, that it is the appellant who had assaulted his wife. As has been mentioned above, Somarani is an eye-witness who had seen the appellant assaulting his wife and hence, we see no valid reason to disbelieve the testimony of Sirajuddin. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Borgohain, had made and attempt to punch a hole in the prosecution case on the ground that the informant Bubai Minz Oran had not been examined by the prosecution as a witness and there is no proper explanation for that. It is no doubt true that ordinarily the prosecution is expected to examine the informant as a witness. However, if the informant is not an eye witness to the incident, mere omission to examine the informant would not ipse jure weaken the prosecution case. It is no doubt true that ordinarily the prosecution is expected to examine the informant as a witness. However, if the informant is not an eye witness to the incident, mere omission to examine the informant would not ipse jure weaken the prosecution case. In the instant case also the informant is not an eye witness to the incident. He had merely informed the Police about the incident by lodging the FIR because the deceased had died at his house. The fact that the deceased had breathed her last at the house of her uncle Bubai Oran has also been proved from the testimony of Sirajuddin. The appellant has been convicted after a full fledged trial, based on cogent evidence on record. Therefore, the plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellant does not merit acceptance by this court. 12. For the reasons stated here-in-above, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, in our view, was just and proper. In the result, it is held that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.