Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 684 (GAU)

Parasuram Koiri v. State of Assam & another

2016-07-26

AJIT SINGH, SUMAN SHYAM

body2016
Ajit Singh; CJ.:-- 1. The sole appellant Parasuram Koiri has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation. He has also been convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation. 2. According to the prosecution case, the appellant lived along with his wife Laxmi Koiri (PW-8), minor son Biru Koiri and daughter Sibani Koiri (PW-9) in a house situated at Shimluguri Guijan Road falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Tinsukia. On 23.10.2013, at about 4 O’clock in the morning, he hacked Biru Koiri to death and caused injuries to Laxmi Koiri and Sibani Koiri with a chopping dao. This he did in his own house. Julhash Rahman (PW-1), Secretary of Guijan Bazar Village Defence Party was informed about the incident. He, therefore, rushed towards the house of appellant. On way, Julhash Rahman met the appellant and he confessed to him about the incident. Julhash then made arrangements for shifting Biru, Laxmi and Sibani to Tinsukia Hospital and from there for better treatment, they were sent to the Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh. But, Biru succumbed to his injuries. Julhash, as Secretary of Guijan Bazar Village Defence Party, immediately lodged the ejahar (exhibit-1) at Guijan Police Out post and also handed over the appellant to police custody. 3. Sub-Inspector, Mahi Kanta Gogoi (PW-14), after arresting the appellant and seizing dao from his possession vide exhibit-2, sent the body of Biru for post mortem examination. 4. On 23.10.2013, Dr. Dhrubajyoti Deka (PW-13) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Biru. He found one incised wound on the left fronto parietal and occipital area. Even the brain had been cut. In the post mortem examination report (exhibit-5), the doctor has opined that Biru died due to head injury caused by sharp cutting weapon. 5. On 23.10.2013, Dr. Prabhal Goswami (PW-11) had examined Laxmi and found stitched wound over left side of face with abrasion over the nose and total amputation of right ring finger at metacarpal joint level. His injury report is exhibit -4. 6. During the trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. 7. 5. On 23.10.2013, Dr. Prabhal Goswami (PW-11) had examined Laxmi and found stitched wound over left side of face with abrasion over the nose and total amputation of right ring finger at metacarpal joint level. His injury report is exhibit -4. 6. During the trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. 7. The trial court, essentially, replying upon the evidence of Laxmi (PW-8), Sibani (PW-9) as well as the evidence of Julhash Rahman (PW-1) convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 8. As mentioned above, Laxmi and Sibani are wife and daughter of appellant. They have testified in one voice that on the date of incident, around 4 AM, the appellant not only hacked Biru to death with a chopping dao, but also made severe assault on them. Both these witnesses were naturally present in the house at the time of incident. No suggestion was made to them in their brief cross examination as to why they would falsely implicate the appellant. The post mortem examination report of Biru as well as the injury report of Laxmi fully corroborates the evidence of Laxmi and Sibani. These witnesses have stood firm in their evidence against the appellant and we find no good reason to disbelieve them. Ram Nazar Prasad (PW-3) is also an eye witness to the incident. According to him, on hearing the commotion, he came out of his house and went to the house of appellant. This witness says that he saw the appellant hacking Biru to death with a dao and causing serious injuries to Laxmi and Sibani. Julhash Rahman too has supported the prosecution case. Julhash has admitted that he lodged the ejahar at Police Out post. In the prompt ejahar lodged by this witness, the name of appellant is categorically mentioned as the perpetrator of crime. 9. For these reasons, we find that prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced him. 10. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.