Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 764 (GAU)

Sutnia Bhui @ Punya v. State of Assam

2016-08-12

AJIT SINGH, N.CHAUDHURY

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. The sole appellant Sutnia Bhui @ Punya 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 victims of the incident were Harujan Karmakar, aged about 32 years and a girl child Tulshi @ Bhoni Karmakar, aged about 2 years. 3. According to the prosecution case, on 15.1.2006, Harujan Karmakar was enjoying picnic with his family members and children in a field nearby his house. At about 6 PM, the appellant armed with a dao, suddenly came there and dealt a blow on the neck of Harujan Karmakar. The appellant then dealt another blow aiming at Haren Karmakar (PW-1), but it struck the head of girl child Tulshi, who was in his lap. Both Harujan and Tulshi were immediately taken to Sonari Hospital where Harujan died. Tulshi was referred to Assam Medical College & Hospital, Dibrugarh for better treatment, but she too died there. Ejahar exhibit 2 of the incident was lodged on the same day by Sargam Karmakar (PW-4) at Police Station Kakotibari, District Sivasagar. Inquest reports exhibits 1 and 3 on the dead bodies of Tulshi and Harujan were made respectively by the police. 4. Dr. Nirmal Chutia (PW-12) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Harujan. He in his post mortem examination report exhibit 7 confirmed that the cause of death of Harujan was due to deep cut injury on his neck. He also opined that the injury could have been caused by the seized weapon dao – Material exhibit 1. Likewise, Dr. Rupak Kumar Gogoi (PW-9) has confirmed that Tulshi died due to incised wound on her scalp which was caused by sharp cutting weapon. The post mortem examination report prepared by Dr. Rupak Kumar Gogoi is exhibit 4. 5. During the trial, the appellant denied having committed any offence. He however did not examine any witness in defence. 6. The trial court essentially relying upon the evidence of eye witnesses – Haren Karmakar (PW-1) and Dharam Karmakar (PW-6) has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. The trial court has also relied upon the post mortem examination reports of victims. 7. Haren Karmakar (PW-1) as mentioned above is the father of girl child Tulshi. He is also the nephew of Harujan. The trial court has also relied upon the post mortem examination reports of victims. 7. Haren Karmakar (PW-1) as mentioned above is the father of girl child Tulshi. He is also the nephew of Harujan. According to his testimony, on the date of incident, sometime during the evening, he was sitting with Tulshi in his lap near Harujan at the picnic spot and at that time, the appellant came there and hacked Harujan with a dao by giving a blow on his neck. Haren says that in panic he tried to run away with Tulshi, but the appellant dealt a blow aiming at him and the blow instead of hitting him, struck the head of Tulshi. Haren has also testified that Tulshi was first taken to Sonari Hospital and then to Assam Medical College & Hospital, Dibrugarh where she died. In the brief cross examination of Haren, nothing was asked by the appellant regarding the incident or his false implication. Similar is the evidence of Dharam Karmakar. He too being the relative of Harujan was a member of picnic party. According to his evidence, while the family members were enjoying picnic, the appellant came with a dao and dealt a blow on the neck of Harujan and then on the head of Tulshi. Even in his cross examination also nothing was suggested by the appellant regarding the incident or his false implication. As noticed above, the evidence of both these witnesses have been substantially corroborated by the post mortem examination reports of victims Tulshi and Harujan. 8. Also in the First Information Report lodged promptly by Sargam Karmakar, the name of appellant is categorically mentioned as an assailant of Tulshi and Harujan. There is yet another witness Maina Karmakar (PW-2) who has corroborated the evidence of Haren Karmakar. Maina is sister of Haren and sister in law of Harujan. Maina has testified that on the date of incident at about 5 PM, she heard Haren screaming and then saw him taking Tulshi in his lap. At that time, Tulshi was injured. According to the evidence of Maina, on her asking, Haren disclosed that appellant had hacked Harujan and Tulshi with a dao. 9. On scanning the evidence of Haren Karmakar (PW-1), Dharam Karmakar (PW-6) as well as the evidence of Maina Karmakar (PW-2) we find them to be truthful and reliable witnesses. 10. At that time, Tulshi was injured. According to the evidence of Maina, on her asking, Haren disclosed that appellant had hacked Harujan and Tulshi with a dao. 9. On scanning the evidence of Haren Karmakar (PW-1), Dharam Karmakar (PW-6) as well as the evidence of Maina Karmakar (PW-2) we find them to be truthful and reliable witnesses. 10. For these reasons, we find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.