Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 743 (GAU)

Gobin Hazarika v. State of Assam

2016-08-09

AJIT SINGH, N.CHAUDHURY

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : N. Chaudhury, J. The prosecution story is that on 5.3.2014, an ejahar was lodged by one Kunuki Hazarika with the Officer –in-Charge of Dhalpur Police Out Post of Bihpuria P.S. informing that her daughter, Poppy Hazarika who was given in marriage to accused Gobin Hazarika about 8 years ago and had three children was hacked to death by her husband Gobin Hazarika at around 3 pm on 5.3.2014 inside their house. She came to know about the incident from television news and thereupon saw the dead body of her daughter at Dalpur Police Outpost. The Bhipuria P.S. Case No. 59 of 2014 under Section 302 IPC was registered with regard to the incident and investigation was held. After police submitted charge sheet, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur committed the case to Sessions by his order dated 3.9.2014. Sessions case No. 148 (N-L)/2014 was registered and a charge was framed by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC against the sole accused person. However, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2. In course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and produced 9 exhibits. There is no eye witness. But having considered the circumstantial evidence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused person under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.15,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. This judgment and order 2.3.2015 has been called in question in the present appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. Anjali Das, learned Amicus Curiae and Ms. S Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. We have also perused the lower court records. 4. PW-1, Sri Deben Hazarika is a shop keeper. He is the younger brother of the accused. He stated that he, his father, the accused and the deceased lived together in one house. At the time of occurrence, he was not at home and his father had gone to discourse on “Bhagawat”. Only the accused and the deceased were at home. At around 3.20 pm on the day of occurrence his neighbour, Kanak Bhuyan informed him over telephone about the incident and thereupon he came and witnessed the dead body of his sister-in-law. Police came and held the inquest over the dead body. Exhibit-1 is the inquest report. Only the accused and the deceased were at home. At around 3.20 pm on the day of occurrence his neighbour, Kanak Bhuyan informed him over telephone about the incident and thereupon he came and witnessed the dead body of his sister-in-law. Police came and held the inquest over the dead body. Exhibit-1 is the inquest report. However, he admitted that he had not seen the occurrence himself. But he gave an indication that about 2/3 years ago, he had taken the accused to Tezpur Mental Hospital for treatment and after the incident, he has not taken the accused to mental hospital again. 5. PW-2, Lachit Borah is a co-villager. He was also not present at the time of occurrence. He saw the dead body only when it was taken for post mortem examination to civil hospital where he works. PW-3, Hema Hazarika is none other than the mother of the accused Gobin Hazarika. She said that Tuntuni, PW-4 is her daughter and deceased Poppy was her daughter-in-law. At the time of occurrence, she was not at home and was at “Namghar” (Community Prayer Hall). While she was reading the “Bhagawat” at that time, one Mulan Borah came and asked her to go home. Having gone home, she found that her daughter-in-law was lying dead in the bed. Before she had reached home, police had come and arrested the accused. She said that PW-4 had informed her that accused admitted to have killed Poppy and requested her to take care of his children. Police seized dao. Exhibit-2 is the seizure list wherein mother of the accused signed as witness. 6. PW-4, Tutumani Bhuyan @ Tuntuni is the elder sister of the accused. She said that on the day of occurrence, accused came to her with two children and said that he had killed Poppy as he wanted to marry another girl. PW-5, Krishna Hazarika is also an inhabitant of the same village. Having heard hue and cry raised by PW-4, he went to the place of occurrence and saw the deceased lying on bed. He said that Tuntuni had told him that accused had cut his wife to death. PW-6 resides in front of the house of the accused. PW-5, Krishna Hazarika is also an inhabitant of the same village. Having heard hue and cry raised by PW-4, he went to the place of occurrence and saw the deceased lying on bed. He said that Tuntuni had told him that accused had cut his wife to death. PW-6 resides in front of the house of the accused. At the time of occurrence, she was at home and hearing the hue and cry raised by Tuntuni, she went outside and saw the wife of the accused was lying dead on their bed inside the house. She came to know from others that accused had killed his wife. PW-7, Probin Mili is the doctor. He proved and found the following injuries on the person of the deceased: (i) Cut like wound with sharp margin of about 3cm x 2 cm x 1cm noted on left lower outer chest wall (ii) Cut like injury with sharp margin of about 3cm x 2cm x 4cm with complete transaction of tracheae noted on anterior side of mid neck (iii) Cut like injury with sharp margin of about 3cm x 3 cm x 2cm with fracture of three numbers of carpel bones noted on left dorsum of hand. (iv) An abrasion mark of about 10cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm obliquely placed noted over the anterior abdominal wall. (v) On opening the peritoneum cavity I found spleen lacerated wound of about 5cm x 2cm x 2cm noted on anterior surface of spleen with an amount of 500 ml of blood noted inside the peritoneum cavity. According to him, death was due to asphyxia, haemorrhage and shock as a result of injury sustained which are ante mortem in nature. 5. PW-8, Anil Borah is the Sub-Inspector of police at Dholpur Police Outpost. He submitted the charge sheet and proved the documents produced by him. 6. The learned Sessions Judge examined the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. When the accused could not give any explanation as to how his wife sustained injuries while inside the house and was on her bed, he only said that he was worried for the future of her 8 year old physically handicapped daughter. 7. 6. The learned Sessions Judge examined the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. When the accused could not give any explanation as to how his wife sustained injuries while inside the house and was on her bed, he only said that he was worried for the future of her 8 year old physically handicapped daughter. 7. Although there is no eye witness in this case but it is to be noticed here that the family members of the accused have come forward to depose in this case and they did not make any attempt whatsoever to save the accused. They were shocked at the death of their daughter-in-law inside their own house. They were not present when the incident had taken place. Even the mother of the accused came and deposed in this case. None of these witnesses who are family members made any allegation against the deceased Poppy. Everybody was saying that they were absent at the relevant time and accused and the victim were alone in the house. This being the position, the responsibility of the accused become high to explain as to how injuries were inflicted on the person of his wife. The dead body was found in the bed inside the house. The accused could not give any explanation as to how there were injuries on the person of his wife. In the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court made the following observation in paragraph-15 : “15. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the conviction of an accused in the aforesaid case in view of the fact that the inmate of the house failed to give explanation as to how injury was committed in secrecy inside the house. Applying the same principle in the present case, we feel that the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error in convicting the accused person under Section 302 IPC basing on the circumstantial evidence. The accused was alone in the house when the occurrence had taken place resulting in death of his wife on the bed. The extra judicial confession made to PW-4 may be a weak piece of evidence but yet in view of the circumstance, its importance cannot be brushed aside. The stand taken by the family members of the house also go to show that no one has any sympathy left for the accused and all the circumstances if taken together the chain of circumstances gets completed. This being the position, there is no scope to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge and accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is hereby upheld. Send down the records.