Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 733 (GAU)

Satya Bowri S/o Pani Ram Bowri v. State of Assam

2016-08-05

AJIT SINGH, N.CHAUDHURY

body2016
JUDGMENT & ORDER (N. Chaudhury, J) The prosecution story is that one Tara Dhanowar lodged an ejahar with Officer-in-Charge, Lahowal Police Station on 04.06.2007 informing that on 03.06.2007 at 10 p.m. one Satya Bowri killed Dhaniram Bhuyan in the house of Bihuram Bowri by dealing blows with a mitt dao. Lahowal P.S. Case No. 85/2007 under Section 302 of the IPC was registered accordingly and investigation was started. Police took Satya Bowri into custody and submitted charge sheet against him and thereupon learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dibrugarh committed the case to session by his order dated 26.07.2007. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter framed a charge under Section 302 of the IPC against the accused. On being read over the charge to him, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2. In course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter convicted the accused under Section 302 Code of Criminal Procedure. On being challenged by the accused, this court remanded the appeal to the learned trial court again for allowing cross examination of the PWs. Thereafter two court witnesses being CW 1 and CW 2 were examined and the prosecution witnesses were cross examined. But after perusal of entire records and after hearing the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Sessions Judge again convicted the accused under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default, R.I. for another 2 months. This judgment and order dated 19.09.2013 has been called in question in the present appeal. 3. We have heard Ms. RS Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Ms. S Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. We have perused the evidence available on record. 4. PW 1, Tara Dhanowar, stated that he is Secretary of the VDP. One Mongra Bhuyan along with Amit Bowri informed him that Satya Bowri killed his father-in-law Dhaniram Bhuyan in the house of Bihuram Bowri and then fled. He came to the place of occurrence, saw the dead body and lodged ejahar with Lahowal Police Station. Ext. 1 is the ejahar. Police came and held inquest of the dead body and arrested Satya Bowri from his house when he was sleeping. Satya handed over the mitt dao by which he has committed the offence. Ext. He came to the place of occurrence, saw the dead body and lodged ejahar with Lahowal Police Station. Ext. 1 is the ejahar. Police came and held inquest of the dead body and arrested Satya Bowri from his house when he was sleeping. Satya handed over the mitt dao by which he has committed the offence. Ext. 2 is the seizure list. 5. PW 2, Bihuram Bowri is the uncle of the accused. He said that deceased came to his house and asked for meal. PW 2 entered his room to provide meal when Dhaniram started singing by lying on veranda. All on a sudden, PW 2 heard a sound and came out to see that accused who is his nephew cut Dhaniram at the neck who died instantaneously and then accused fled. He thereafter informed the VDP Secretary, PW 1. Police came and held inquest of the dead body. Ext. 3 is the inquest report in which the Ext. 3(1) is his signature. 6. PW 3, Smt. Tara Bowri, is the wife of PW 2, Bihuram Bowri. She also narrated the same story as told by her husband and deposed to have seen accused Satya Bowri in killing Dhaniram by hacking a dao blow. PW 4, Lakhi Nath Bowri is a day labourer. He stated that at about 9.30 p.m. he was lying on bed when he heard a sound of hacking dao and then came out of his house to see that accused was fleeing with a dao in his hand and a dead body was lying on the veranda. At that time he was lying on the bed of Bihuram in his house. However, in course of cross examination he stated that he was sleeping in his own home and came out only after hearing sound. Deposition of this witness, however, does not inspire much confidence. PW 5, Mongra Bhuyan is a garden labourer. He said that when he was sleeping he heard hue and cry and Bihuram told him about the incident but he did not see anything. PW 6, Dr. N.M. Kakoti examined the dead body and noted that there was an incised wound of 21 cm x 5 cm at the left side of the upper part of the neck of the deceased. He opined that death was instantaneous resulting from injury caused by sharp weapon. 7. PW 6, Dr. N.M. Kakoti examined the dead body and noted that there was an incised wound of 21 cm x 5 cm at the left side of the upper part of the neck of the deceased. He opined that death was instantaneous resulting from injury caused by sharp weapon. 7. PW 7, Bhadra Kanta Medhi, is a Sub Inspector of Police. He conducted enquiry and after visiting the place of occurrence and after recording the statements of the witnesses, he submitted charge sheet Ext. 4. After remand of the case from the High Court, CW 1 Smti. Renu Bhuyan was examined who is the wife of accused Satya Bowri. She could not cast any light about the incident but said that her deceased father had no quarrel with her accused husband and she did not know as to why her father had died. CW 2, Dinanath Phukan is a resident of the same village. He is the Gaon Bura of the village. He knew both the accused and the deceased. On the night of occurrence, police came from Ghoramora out post and he accompanied them to the place of the occurrence and saw the dead body along with VDP Secretary. He could not say as to why the occurrence had taken place. The learned trial court thereafter examined accused Satya Bowri under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when he specifically admitted to have killed Dhaniram and also admitted to have handed over the dao to police. He said that Dhaniram rebuked him and so he killed him. He further stated that Dhaniram had set fire to his house for which he committed murder by hacking with dao on his neck. Thus, the accused specifically admitted to have killed the deceased by hacking a dao blow. Except for statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he has not furnished any material enabling this court to hold that there was sudden provocation but for which he had to commit the murder. When there are eye witnesses in the case establishing that the accused had committed murder of Dhaniram and even accused admitted to have committed the murder then the only question is as to whether there was any intention of the accused to kill the deceased. When there are eye witnesses in the case establishing that the accused had committed murder of Dhaniram and even accused admitted to have committed the murder then the only question is as to whether there was any intention of the accused to kill the deceased. But even on the face of his statement made under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the evidence adduced by the prosecution it appears that he dealt a blow on the neck of the deceased with a sharp dao knowing fully well that such a blow would result in his death. It is, therefore, not possible to hold that the accused did not intend to kill the deceased and he wanted to assault him only. The accused has not furnished any material whatsoever enabling this court to hold the view that there was sound provocation and so there is no scope to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge held that commission of offence under Section 302 of the IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accused killed his own father-in-law by inflicting a blow at the vital part of the body with a sharp weapon. Even after remand of the case to the learned trial court there was no effective cross examination so as to dislodge the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Under such circumstances, there is no scope to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge and accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Conviction and sentence of the appellant stands upheld. 8. Send down the lower court records.