Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 719 (GAU)

Ranjit Das v. State of Assam

2016-08-03

AJIT SINGH, N.CHAUDHURY

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (Ajit Singh, C.J.) The sole appellant Ranjit Das has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation. 2. The victim of the incident was Satan Ram, aged about 40 years. 3. According to the prosecution case, the appellant lived along with his wife Champa Das (PW-9) and children in a small house made of bamboo. And Satan Ram lived alone in one-room house, which was adjoining to the house of appellant. Sanjoy Agarwal (PW-1) was the landlord of both appellant and Satan Ram. Near the house of appellant, there was a water body, which was marshy and full of water hyacinths. Lalmon Ram (PW-2) is relative of Satan Ram. Both Satan Ram and Lalmon Ram worked in a Wine Shop and sometimes, Lalmon Ram also stayed in the house of Satan Ram. The appellant somehow came to know that Satan Ram has developed illicit relations with Champa. On the night of 11.8.2009, when the appellant returned home, he saw Satan Ram in a compromising position with Champa. He immediately caught Satan Ram and tied him. Satan Ram then called for help. Hearing his call, Lalmon Ram (PW-2) went to him. Lalmon Ram persuaded the appellant to untie Satan Ram. Thereafter, Lalmon Ram slept in the house of Satan Ram for the latter’s safety. But, later, on the asking of Satan Ram, Lalmon Ram went to another house. In the early hours of following morning, Lalmon Ram saw the appellant with a “bathi dao” rushing towards the bushes. It was soon discovered that Satan Ram has been killed with a bathi dao. Immediately, police was informed whereupon Prasanta Kumar Sonowal (PW-6), In-charge of Hijuguri Police Outpost under Police Station Tinsukia rushed to the place of occurrence with his team. At that time, large number of people had also gathered there. Everyone believed that appellant, after committing the murder of Satan Ram, was hiding in the water body. The police therefore by announcement through Loud Speaker persuaded the appellant to surrender. The appellant came out from the marshy water body and surrendered to the police. The police seized one bathi dao from the possession of appellant. The seizure of bathi dao is Exhibit 3. 4. Dr. Gauri Sankar Gogoi (PW-5) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Satan Ram. The appellant came out from the marshy water body and surrendered to the police. The police seized one bathi dao from the possession of appellant. The seizure of bathi dao is Exhibit 3. 4. Dr. Gauri Sankar Gogoi (PW-5) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Satan Ram. He found five cut injuries on the body of Satan Ram. The doctor in his post mortem examination report Exhibit 4 opined that Satan Ram died due to cut injuries which were ante mortem. 5. During the trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication.He, however, during his examination as an accused, admitted that he saw Satan Ram in a compromising position with Champa and had slapped him in anger. 6. As mentioned above, Champa Das is wife of appellant. She, in her evidence, has admitted that appellant caught her in a compromising position with Satan Ram. She, however, says that Satan Ram was committing rape on her, when the appellant had caught her. Whatever it may be, the appellant, seeing his wife in a compromising position with Satan Ram, lost his cool and assaulted him. According to the evidence of Lalmon Ram he went to the house of Satan Ram on hearing his cry and found that appellant had tied him. Lalmon Ram has testified that on his request, the appellant untied Satan Ram. Lalmon Ram has also testified that in the early hours of following morning, he saw the appellant running towards bushes with a bathi dao. Soon thereafter dead body of Satan Ram with injuries was found in front of the house of appellant. 7. In view of the evidence of Champa, Lalmon Ram as well as the admission of appellant during his examination as an accused, 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 the crime. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has, however, argued that even accepting the prosecution story in totality, it cannot be said that appellant had the intention to murder Satan Ram 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. We find sufficient force in this submission. The appellant had found his wife Champa in a compromising position with Satan Ram. He, therefore, apparently, committed the offence due to grave and sudden provocation.The offence, thus, would fall under first explanation to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The offence committed by the appellant would be covered under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. 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 and instead, convict him under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code and award a sentence of 8 (eight) years rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of fine is however affirmed. The appellant is in jail and he be released on his undergoing the jail sentence awarded by us. 10. With the above modification, the appeal is partly allowed.