Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 760 (GAU)

Lakhiram Garh v. State of Assam

2016-08-12

AJIT SINGH, N.CHAUDHURY

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. Appellant Lakhiram Garh 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 Hiramoti Garh, aged about 50 years. She was also the wife of appellant. 3. Appellant and Hiramoti lived together in a small house having two rooms. One of the rooms was occupied by them and the other room was occupied by their son Khagen Garh, aged about 13 years (PW-1) and daughter in law Phuleswari Garh (PW-3) of another son Cheniram Garh. Cheniram Garh worked in the State of Kerala and therefore mostly he was out. On the intervening night of 9.1.2012, the appellant and Hiramoti slept in their room whereas Khagen Garh and Phuleswari slept in another room. Around 12 O’clock in the night, appellant hacked Hiramoti on her neck with a dao as a result of which she died. Khagen Garh and Phuleswari on hearing the commotion from the room of appellant, woke up and tried to enter that room but was prevented by the appellant. Around 6 AM in the morning, Khagen somehow managed to come out from the house and informed the elder brother of appellant Sanjib Garh (PW-5) about the incident. Sanjib Garh then informed Village Headman Protekram Kisko (PW-6) who in turn informed the Secretary of Village Defence Party Md. Habibur Rahman (PW-7). Md. Habibur Rahman telephonically informed the police about the incident. Thereafter, all of them went to the house of appellant and found Hiramoti lying dead with injury in her neck inside the room. In the meantime, the appellant also surrendered at the Police Station Uriamghat. 4. Khagen Garh made the ejahar exhibit 1 of incident wherein he has categorically named the appellant (father) as an assailant of his mother Hiramoti. Police seized one dao from the possession of the appellant vide seizure memo exhibit 4 dated 10.1.2013. Abon Garh (PW-8), Sanjib Garh (PW-5), Bimal Murmu (PW-9) and Protekram Kisko (PW-6) are witnesses to the seizure of dao. 5. Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka (PW-2) conducted the post mortem examination on the body of Hiramoti. According to his post mortem examination report exhibit 3, Hiramoti had a cut injury on her neck due to which she died. 6. During the trial, the appellant denied the charge. 5. Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka (PW-2) conducted the post mortem examination on the body of Hiramoti. According to his post mortem examination report exhibit 3, Hiramoti had a cut injury on her neck due to which she died. 6. During the trial, the appellant denied the charge. And while being examined as an accused, he but for saying “I have nothing to say” did not give any explanation regarding the homicidal death of Hiramoti. 7. The trial court mainly relying upon the evidence of Khagen Garh, Phuleswari Garh and the post mortem examination report convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 8. In Ganeshlal Vs. State of Maharashtra (1992) 3 SCC 106 , the accused was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. In this case, the Supreme Court observed that when the death had occurred in the custody of accused, he is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 has again approved the well settled principle that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and that accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. In this case the Supreme Court has also held that where a husband is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling house where the husband also normally resided and if the husband does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it was a strong circumstance pointing that he alone was responsible for the commission of crime. 10. 10. There is yet another decision of the Supreme Court, State of Rajashthan vs. Kashi Ram AIR 2007 SC 144 wherein it is held that when the accused was last seen with his murdered wife, he must give explanation or plead alibi in support of his innocence or else it would be a strong circumstance against him pointing towards his guilt. 11. As mentioned above Khagen is the son of appellant. He was aged about 13 years on the date of incident and was sleeping in another room with his sister in law Phuleswari (PW-3) on the night of incident. Both of them have stated in one voice that on hearing the commotion from the room of appellant, they woke up and tried to go inside that room but was prevented by the appellant. On the following morning, they both saw Hirumoti dead body lying on the floor with a cut injury on her neck. Khagen has admitted that prior to the incident, both appellant and Hirumoti often used to pick up quarrel. Phuleswari too has admitted that appellant and Hirumoti used to have liquor and picked up quarrel very often. We find the evidence of Khagen and Phuleswari very natural and trustworthy. Nothing has been brought out on record by the appellant to suggest that they would falsely implicate him. Sanjib Garh has corroborated the evidence of Khagen about being informed by Khagen that appellant had killed Hirumoti. Protekram Kisko (PW-6) is Village Headman and Md. Habibur Rahman (PW-7) is Secretary of Village Defence Party. Both of them have testified that they saw the body of Hirumoti lying inside the room of appellant with a cut injury. 12. It is, thus, established that Hiramoti was found dead with a cut injury in her neck inside the room of appellant. The appellant has not given any explanation for the cause of death of Hiramoti either after his arrest or during his trial. Mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation regarding the cause of death of Hiramoti, under the facts and circumstances of the case, does not help him in any manner. On the contrary, it leads to the conclusion that he alone is responsible for the commission of murder of his wife Hiramoti. Mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation regarding the cause of death of Hiramoti, under the facts and circumstances of the case, does not help him in any manner. On the contrary, it leads to the conclusion that he alone is responsible for the commission of murder of his wife Hiramoti. Besides this, the evidence of Khagen Garh and Phuleswari Garh also establishes the prosecution case against appellant beyond reasonable doubt that Hiramoti was hacked to death by him with a dao. 13. For these reasons, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.