Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 793 (GAU)

Prafulla Chetry v. State of Assam

2016-08-19

AJIT SINGH, N.CHAUDHURY

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. The sole appellant Prafulla Chetry 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 Gangamaya Chetry, aged about 32 years. She was also the sister of Dil Bahadur Chetry (PW-1). 3. According to the prosecution case, Dil Bahadur Chetry and his wife Kalpana Chetry lived together in a house situated at village Rajabari (Ouguri) District Golaghat. Along with them, Gangamaya Chetry and appellant also lived in the same house. Gangamaya Chetry was sister of Dil Bahadur Chetry whereas appellant is his nephew. On 8.5.2013, at about 4.25 PM, while Gangamaya Chetry was sweeping the rear courtyard, the appellant dealt a blow from behind on her head with a big dao, as a result of which, she died on the spot. At that time, only Kalpana Chetry was in the house and Dil Bahadur Chetry was working inside the enclosed yard. On hearing the hue and cry, Dil Bahadur Chetry rushed to his house and saw the appellant standing with a dao in his hand and Gangamaya Chetry lying dead with bleeding cut injuries on her head. Likewise, hearing the commotion, neighbours of Dil Bahadur Chetry also came to the house and saw the appellant standing with a dao near the injured dead body of Gangamaya Chetry. All of them tied the appellant with a rope and Dil Bahadur Chetry went to Police Out Post Numaligarh to make ejahar exhibit 1. Uday Upadhaya (PW-2) had accompanied Dil Bahadur Chetry upto the Police Station. The ejahar was thereupon registered as First Information Report exhibit 4 at Police Station Golaghat. The police immediately rushed to the house of Dil Bahadur Chetry and made the inquest report exhibit 3 on the dead body of Gangamaya Chetry. Thereafter, the police also seized one long dao fitted with a bamboo handle from the possession of appellant. This the police did in the house of Dil Bahadur Chetry. The seized dao belonged to the household of Dil Bahadur Chetry. 4. On 9.5.2013, Dr. Rajib Phukan (PW-6) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Gangamaya Chetry. He found one sharp incised wound at the base of skull on the occipital bone through which brain matter had come out. The seized dao belonged to the household of Dil Bahadur Chetry. 4. On 9.5.2013, Dr. Rajib Phukan (PW-6) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Gangamaya Chetry. He found one sharp incised wound at the base of skull on the occipital bone through which brain matter had come out. The doctor in his post mortem examination report exhibit 10 opined that the cause of death of Gangamaya Chetry was due to massive cut injury on her head. 5. During trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. Also, while being examined as an accused, he mainly answered the questions put to him by saying “I have nothing to say”. 6. The trial court relying upon the evidence of witnesses examined by the prosecution as well as one court witness Kalpana Chetry (CW-1) convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 7. As mentioned above, Dil Bahadur Chetry is uncle of appellant and brother of victim Gangamaya Chetry. Both of them have been living with the appellant since last many years. There is nothing on record to even suggest that Dil Bahadur Chetry or his wife Kalpana Chetry nursed any ill will against the appellant. On the contrary, Uday Upadhaya (PW-2) has testified that Dil Bahadur Chetry brought the appellant up since his childhood because he had lost his mother. It is in this background, the evidence of Dil Bahadur Chetry and Kalpana Chetry has to be appreciated. 8. Dil Bahadur Chetry has categorically testified that on hearing the hue and cry, he rushed to his house and saw the appellant standing with a dao near the injured dead body of Gangamaya Chetry and on his asking, appellant did not give any reply. According to the evidence of Dil Bahadur Chetry, at the time of incident, only the appellant, Gangamaya Chetry and Kalpana Chetry were present in the house. Dil Bahadur Chetry honestly does not claim to have seen the appellant actually assaulting Gnagamaya Chetry with a dao. But, his evidence establishes the fact that appellant was standing with a blood stained dao near the injured dead body of Gangamaya Chetry. And, at that time, but for Kalpana Chetry, no one else was in the house. 9. Kalpana Chetry, for some reason, was not interrogated by the police. The trial court, however, in its wisdom, thought it proper to examine her as court witness. And, at that time, but for Kalpana Chetry, no one else was in the house. 9. Kalpana Chetry, for some reason, was not interrogated by the police. The trial court, however, in its wisdom, thought it proper to examine her as court witness. Kalpana Chetryin her evidence says that she saw the appellant chasing Gangamaya Chetry and then hacking her with a dao. She has also deposed that at the time of incident, Dil Bahadur Chetry was working in the enclosed yard of the house. According to the evidence of Kalpana Chetry, on seeing the incident, she felt shocked and became nervous. The evidence of Kalpana Chetry also stands substantially corroborated by the post mortem examination report. 10. On scanning the evidence of Dil Bahadur Chetry and Kalpana Chetry, we find them to be honest and reliable witnesses. No suggestion was put to these witnesses by the appellant why they would falsely implicate him. Also, both of them, till the date of incident, have been showering upon him all their love and affection, apart from providing home. 11. Witnesses Uday Upadhaya (PW-2), Santiram Upadhaya (PW-3) and Md. Ijul Ali (PW-4) have also testified in one voice that on hearing the commotion, when they went to the house of Dil Bahadur Chetry, they saw the appellant standing near the injured dead body of Gangamaya Chetry with a dao in his hand and on their asking, he confessed killing her. The evidence of these witnesses fully corroborates the evidence of Dil Bahadur Chetry about the appellant being present in the house at the time of incident and that he was standing with a blood stained dao near the injured dead body of Gangamaya Chetry. No explanation whatsoever has been given by the appellant regarding his position of standing near the injured dead body of Gangamaya Chetry with a dao in his hand and her homicidal death. 12. For these reasons, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the finding of the trial court that appellant alone was the perpetrator of the crime. 13. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.