Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 762 (GAU)

Janmejoy Boro v. State of Assam

2016-08-12

AJIT SINGH, N.CHAUDHURY

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. Appellant Janmejoy Boro has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation. 2. The victim of the incident was Rambhabati Boro, aged about 70 years. Unfortunately, she was mother of the appellant. 3. Rambhabati Boro was widow. She was, therefore, totally dependent on the appellant (her son). Sadly she also suffered from paralysis and was confined to bed since last 3 years. Because of her sufferings, she often used to groan in agony. On 10.3.2013, at about 11 PM, when she was groaning, the appellant lost his cool and cut her neck with a dao. One son thus most inhumanly killed his own helpless mother. Pratima Boro (PW-7) wife of appellant felt so terrified that she ran away to another man’s house. The appellant too after killing Rambhabala Boro went to a nearby house and lied down. Ejahar exhibit 1 of the incident was lodged by Kalimohan Boro (PW-1) at Police Station Dudhnoi, District Goalpara on the following morning. The police immediately rushed to the spot along with one Magistrate and held the inquest exhibit 2 of the dead body. The police also seized one dao from the possession of the appellant. The seizure memo of dao is exhibit 3. Dr. Bichitra Kumar Bordoloi (PW-6) in his post mortem examination report exhibit 4 stated that Rambhabala Boro died due to ante mortem cut injury on her neck. 4. The appellant after his arrest expressed his desire to make confessional statement. On 12.3.2013 Gokul Chandra Baruah (PW-9), the Officer in-charge of Dudhnoi Police Station therefore made a prayer to the court for recording the confessional statement of appellant. Biprajit Roy (PW-8) then recorded the confessional statement exhibit 6 of the appellant wherein he admitted killing of Rambhabala Boro with a dao. 5. During the trial the appellant abjured his guilt. But while being examined as an accused, he admitted making of confessional statement before the Magistrate. He however said that at that time he was not in his senses. 6. The trial court relying upon the evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as confessional statement of appellant convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. 7. But while being examined as an accused, he admitted making of confessional statement before the Magistrate. He however said that at that time he was not in his senses. 6. The trial court relying upon the evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as confessional statement of appellant convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. 7. The confessional statement of appellant recorded by Biprajit Roy (PW-8) reads as under:- “My mother Rambhabati Boro had been lying bed ridden for three years or so due to paralysis. Lying down on the bed, she used to groan. On the night of the incident, she had been lying on the bed and groaning. Being angry, I cut her in the neck with the dao with which I performed my household works. I dealt her two blows. Mother died instantly. My son was not at home. My wife and daughter ran away to another man’s house out of fear. I went to the nearby house and lied down. Police came in the morning.” 8. Biprajit Roy (PW-8) was Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on the date when he recorded the above quoted confessional statement of appellant. He has testified that under his direction, the appellant was kept away from the custody of police and he was given sufficient time for reflection. According to the evidence of Biprajit Roy he ensured that confessional statement of appellant was voluntary and without any influence. On scanning the evidence of Biprajit Roy we find that he recorded the confessional statement of appellant strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that statement of appellant was voluntary. In his confessional statement the appellant has very specifically admitted about the killing of his ailing mother with a dao. 9. The confessional statement of appellant is also corroborated by the post mortem examination report exhibit 4 which confirmed that Rambhabala Boro died due to cut injury on her neck. And such cut is caused with a dao. Also witnesses Baljit Daimary (PW-2), Diju Mohan Boro (PW-3) Babul Basumatary (PW-4) have testified in one voice that they are co-villagers and on hearing the commotion from the house of appellant they went there and saw the dead body of Rambhabala Boro lying inside. And at that time the appellant confessed before them that he had hacked her to death. Similar is the evidence of Kalimohan Boro (PW-1). And at that time the appellant confessed before them that he had hacked her to death. Similar is the evidence of Kalimohan Boro (PW-1). He is elder brother of Rambhabala Boro. He has testified that on being informed about the incident he went to the house of appellant on the following morning and saw the dead body of Rambhabala Boro. According to the evidence of Kalimohan on his asking the appellant confessed that he had killed Rambhabala. Pratima Boro (PW-7) is wife of appellant. Even she has testified that appellant became angry on hearing the groaning sound of Rambhabala and said that he would kill her. Appellant then thrust Pratima on the floor by pulling her hair and brought a dao from the kitchen. According to the evidence of Pratima, she became so terrified of being cut that she ran away. Although this witness was declared hostile by the prosecution, her evidence is enough to establish that appellant was left alone in the house with Rambhabala and soon thereafter she was found hacked to death. And no explanation whatsoever has been given by the appellant regarding the killing of Rambhabala. 10. For these reasons, we are of the considered view that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence brought on record by the prosecution in convicting the appellant. The confessional statement of appellant recorded by the Judicial magistrate which is substantially corroborated by the medical evidence and witnesses Kalimohan Boro (PW-1), Baljit Daimary (PW 2), Diju Mohan Boro (PW-3) and Babul Basumatary (PW-4) leads to only one conclusion that appellant alone was the perpetrator of the crime. 11. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.