Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 712 (GAU)

Munna Karmakar v. State of Assam

2016-08-02

AJIT SINGH, N.CHAUDHURY

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (Ajit Singh, C.J.) The sole appellant Munna Karmakar has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulation. 2. The victim of the incident was Romesh Karmakar. He was also son of the appellant. 3. According to the prosecution case, on 13.2.2013, at about 4 PM, Romesh was sleeping in his house. At that point of time, the appellant suddenly went there with a big wooden log and dealt a blow with it on the head of Romesh. The blow was so fatal that Romesh died on the spot. After giving the blow, the appellant ran away. The incident was witnessed by Meera Karmakar (PW-1), wife of Romesh. The First Information Report was lodged at Police Station Teok, District Jorhat by MeeraKarmakar. In the First Information Report, the name of appellant is categorically mentioned as the assailant of Romesh. 4. Dr. Tapan Das (PW-5) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Romesh. He found one lacerated wound with surrounding contusion on the head of Romesh and one abrasion on his right knee. The doctor in his post mortem examination report Exhibit 2 opined that Romesh died due to head injury, which was caused by blunt force impact. 5. During the trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. 6. The trial court essentially relying upon the evidence of Meera Karmakar (PW-1), Durpodi Karmakar (PW-2) and the post mortem examination report, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 7. As stated above, Meera Karmakar is wife of Romesh and daughter-in-law of the appellant. She being the wife was naturally present in the house at the time of incident. She has categorically testified that while Romesh was sleeping in the bed, the appellant suddenly came with a big wooden log and dealt a blow with it on the head of Romesh. According to her evidence, the blow was so strong that Romesh died on the spot. Meera Karmakar has stood firm in her evidence and nothing could be brought out in the cross examination to disbelieve her. Her evidence also stands substantially corroborated by the post mortem examination report which confirmed that Romesh died due to head injury. 8. Durpodi Karmakar (PW-2) is wife of appellant and mother of Romesh. Meera Karmakar has stood firm in her evidence and nothing could be brought out in the cross examination to disbelieve her. Her evidence also stands substantially corroborated by the post mortem examination report which confirmed that Romesh died due to head injury. 8. Durpodi Karmakar (PW-2) is wife of appellant and mother of Romesh. According to her evidence, on hearing the commotion, she rushed to the house of Romesh and found that he was lying dead. Durpodi has testified that on her asking Meera disclosed that appellant had killed Romesh with a big wooden log, while he was sleeping. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of this witness, who herself is a victim of circumstances. 9. Having regard to the natural and reliable evidence of Meera and Durpodi, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the finding of the trial court that appellant alone was the perpetrator of the crime. Merely because the police have failed to seize the wooden log from the appellant, the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved. It is unfortunate that appellant has killed his elder son Romesh, while he was sleeping and the cause of incident is not reflected from the record. 10. Whatever it may be, we find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.