Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 742 (GAU)

Bikash Sarkar v. State of Assam

2016-08-09

AJIT SINGH, N.CHAUDHURY

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. The sole appellant Bikash Sarkar has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation. 2. The victim of the incident was Swapan Kumar Karji, aged about 35 years. 3. Brothers Kamal Paul (PW-1) and Pradip Paul were owners of one ten-wheel truck. Swapan Kumar Karji was driver of that truck. The appellant was known to Swapan Kumar Karji. Therefore, on the request of Swapan Kumar Karji, Kamal Paul employed the appellant as Handyman of the truck. 4. On 21.5.2011 around 8 PM, the truck loaded with potato left Kamakhyaguri of West Bengal for Nagaon, Assam. At that time, the truck was being driven by Swapan Kumar Karji. The appellant went in the truck as Handyman. Upto 23.5.2011 till 8 AM, Swapan Kumar Karji was in contact with Kamal Paul. 5. On 25.5.2011, the appellant drove the truck to the shop of Md. Ijauddin (PW-3) and asked whether he would purchase potato at lower price than the market price. The shop of Md. Ijauddin was in District Nagaon and fell within the jurisdiction of Police Station Rupahihat. Md. Ijauddin asked the appellant to show challan papers of potato, which he could not do. Md. Ijauddin, therefore, became suspicious and telephonically informed the police. On receiving the information, Sub Inspector Md. Habibur Rahman (PW-6) immediately rushed to the shop and persuaded the appellant to drive down the truck to the police station. 6. At the Police Station, the appellant first told the police that he was driver of the truck and challan papers of potato had been seized by the Motor Vehicle Inspector. But, on continued interrogation, he admitted that Swapan Kumar Karji was the actual driver whom he had killed and kept the dead body under the seat of truck. The police then immediately informed Kamal Paul, who along with Pradip Paul and Purna Karji (PW-2), reached the police station Rupahihat on 26.5.2011. There he also made the ejahar exhibit 1.The police on the disclosure statement of appellant, seized one knife from the truck. Exhibit 3 is the seizure of knife. 7. On 26.5.2011, Dr. Arup Jyoti Mahanta (PW-7) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Swapan Kumar Karji. He found that the whole body was swollen up and decomposed with foul smell. Exhibit 3 is the seizure of knife. 7. On 26.5.2011, Dr. Arup Jyoti Mahanta (PW-7) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Swapan Kumar Karji. He found that the whole body was swollen up and decomposed with foul smell. The doctor also found that throat had been cut upto trachea and both carotid vessels too were cut. In the post mortem examination report exhibit 6, Dr. Arup Jyoti Mahanta opined that Swapan Kumar Karji died due to throat injury, which was ante mortem in nature. 8. During the trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence. He, however, while being examined as an accused, admitted that he was handyman and Swapan Kumar Karji was driver of the truck and both of them left Kamakhyaguri to Nagaon in the truck, which was loaded with commodities. The appellant also admitted that he went to Md. Ijauddin to enquire about the police station after he saw the dead body of driver and blood in the truck, so that he could inform the matter to police. The appellant further admitted that he had driven the truck to the police station. 9. The trial court having regard to the evidence brought on record by the prosecution convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 10. Kamal Paul has testified that on 21.5.2011 appellant as Handyman of his truck went along with its driver Swapan Kumar Karji. According to him, the truck was loaded with potato and Swapan Kumar Karji was in contact with him upto 23.5.2011. As mentioned above, the appellant has also admitted that he went in the truck along with the driver Swapan Kumar Karji. Md. Ijauddin has testified that the appellant came to his shop and proposed to sell potato in less price than the market price and on his asking for challan papers, the appellant could not show the same. According to the evidence of Md. Ijauddin he became suspicious and informed the police. The police then came to his shop and persuaded the appellant to drive the truck upto the police station. The appellant has also admitted during his examination as an accused that he did go to the shop of Md. Ijauddin from where the police made him drive the truck upto the police station. 11. The police then came to his shop and persuaded the appellant to drive the truck upto the police station. The appellant has also admitted during his examination as an accused that he did go to the shop of Md. Ijauddin from where the police made him drive the truck upto the police station. 11. At the police station, during interrogation, the police recovered the dead body of Swapan Kumar Karji which was kept hidden under the seat and was also covered with a blanket. As seen above, the appellant admitted the fact that dead body of Swapan Kumar Karji was kept in the truck and he even saw blood in the truck. Since the appellant was Handyman of the truck and was throughout with Swapan Kumar Karji, he was under an obligation to give plausible explanation how the dead body of Swapan Kumar Karji with cut throat injury was found in the truck. From the evidence of Md. Ijauddin, it appears that the appellant after killing Swapan Kumar Karji wanted to somehow sell the loaded consignment of potato for wrongful gain and run away. Kamal Paul has stated in his evidence that appellant was employed as Handyman on the request of Swapan Kumar Karji and personally he did not know him. The explanation of the appellant that he went to the shop of Md. Ijauddin to enquire about the police station so that he may inform about the dead body of Swapan Kumar Karji in the truck is wholly ridiculous and cannot be believed. The failure on the part of the appellant to explain the homicidal death of Swapan Kumar Karji and discovery of his dead body in the truck, of which, he was Handyman, leads to only one conclusion that he alone was the perpetrator of crime. 12. For these reasons, we find no illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.