Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 797 (GAU)

Kripal Borah v. State of Assam

2016-08-23

AJIT SINGH, N.CHAUDHURY

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. The sole appellant Kripal Borah 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 Majujan Ali, aged about 35 years. He used to run a bicycle repairing shop on the bank of Jamuna Canal near Circuit House at Sivsagar Town. 3. According to the prosecution case, the appellant was a Police Constable. He was assigned Guard duty in the Circuit House, Sivasagar. On 13.3.2006, he picked up one fish from the rickshaw of rickshaw puller Padum Pradhan (PW-14). When Padum Pradhan protested, the appellant quarreled with him, but returned the fish. Padum Pradhan then also complained about the conduct of appellant to Majujan Ali. Since the appellant was a frequent visitor to the shop of Majujan Ali, he advised the appellant not to trouble people. This infuriated the appellant. He not only pushed Majujan Ali on the road, but also warned that he would take revenge. And, on the same night, the appellant, after getting drunk, forcibly entered inside the house of Majujan Ali and shot him dead with .303 rifle, which was allotted to him. This he did in the presence of family members of Majujan Ali. The incident was witnessed by Khetiza Begum (PW-7), Juli Begum (PW-8) and Sulekha Begum (PW-9). Majujan Ali was carried in the car of Md. Nazimul Hussain (PW-5) to Sivasagar Civil Hospital, where he was declared dead. Md.Nazimuddin Hussain, Secretary of Village Defence Party informed the incident to Sivasagar Police Station over telephone regarding which Entry exhibit 11 was made vide G.D. No.563 dated 13.3.2006. Md. Noor Ali (PW-4) made the ejahar exhibit 3 at the same Police Station. Bisturam Kumbung (PW-17), Executive Magistrate made the inquest report exhibit 2 on the dead body of Majujan Ali. The police seized one .303 rifle bearing Butt No.53, 40 rounds of live cartridges, one cotton bundle and one rifle ceiling from the possession of appellant vide seizure memo exhibit 1.The police also seized one empty cartridge of .303 ammunition vide exhibit 10, which was found lying near the bed of appellant. 4. On 14.3.2006, Dr. Pradip Kumar Saikia (PW-12) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Majujan Ali. 4. On 14.3.2006, Dr. Pradip Kumar Saikia (PW-12) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Majujan Ali. He, in his post mortem examination report exhibit 9, confirmed that the cause of death of Majujan Ali was due to gun-shot injury. 5. During trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. He, however, did not examine any witness in defence. 6. The trial court, relying upon the evidence of eye witnesses as well as other witnesses examined by the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 7. Eye witnesses – Khetiza Begum (PW-7) and Juli Begum (PW-8) are wife and daughter of Majujan Ali. Therefore, they were naturally present in the house, when the incident took place. Both of them have deposed in one voice that on 13.3.2006 at about 8.30 PM, the appellant forcibly entered their house and shot dead Majujan Ali with a long barrel gun after saying that he had come to shoot him. According to their evidence, the appellant had kicked opened the front door of their house and at that time, he was in police uniform. They have also testified that the appellant fired from the gun, which is used by the police. They have even identified the gun as weapon of offence. And nothing has been brought out by the appellant in the brief cross examination of these witnesses to discredit their evidence. On the contrary, these witnesses have stood firm in their evidence that appellant alone had shot dead Majujan Ali. Another witness to the incident is Sulekha Begum (PW-9). She lived as tenant in the house of Majujan Ali and shared the common kitchen. According to her evidence, she was present in the house of Majujan Ali, when the appellant suddenly forcibly entered inside and shot dead Majujan Ali with a gun. She has thus substantially corroborated the evidence of Khetiza Begum (PW-7) and Juli Begum (PW-8). In the cross examination, nothing was suggested by the appellant to any of these witnesses why they would falsely implicate him. Dr. Pradip Kumar Saikia (PW-12) in his post mortem examination report has confirmed that Majujan Ali died due to gun-shot injury. Therefore, the medical evidence also corroborates the evidence of witnesses - Khetiza Begum (PW-7), Juli Begum (PW-8) and Sulekha Begum (PW-9). 8. Nabul Ali (PW-10) is husband of Juli Begum. Dr. Pradip Kumar Saikia (PW-12) in his post mortem examination report has confirmed that Majujan Ali died due to gun-shot injury. Therefore, the medical evidence also corroborates the evidence of witnesses - Khetiza Begum (PW-7), Juli Begum (PW-8) and Sulekha Begum (PW-9). 8. Nabul Ali (PW-10) is husband of Juli Begum. He has testified that he too was in the house of Majujan Ali when the appellant had fired from the gun, but he could not see the actual firing because he was busy in some other work. According to Nabul Ali, he however saw the appellant leaving the house in uniform with a gun immediately after it was fired. 9. Md. Noor Ali (PW-4) is brother of Majujan Ali. He has admitted to have lodged ejahar exhibit 3. According to his evidence, on the date of incident at about 8.30 PM, he was watching television in the house of his another brother Babul Ali and on hearing the sound of gun fire, he rushed towards the house of Majujan Ali. But, on way, he saw appellant holding a rifle in his hand, who not only pointed it towards him, but also cautioned not to come near or else he would shoot him too. Md. Noor Ali has further testified that on reaching the house of Majujan Ali, he found him with injury on his chest which was bleeding profusely. According to Md. Noor Ali, on his asking, family members disclosed that appellant had shot him. Thus, even the evidence of this witness also corroborates the evidence of eye witnesses mentioned above. 10. Ranjit Kumar Baruah (PW-20) was posted as 2nd Officer in Sivsagar Police Station. He has testified that on 13.3.2006 at about 8.40 PM, he received telephonic information from Md. Nizamuddin, Secretary of Village Defence Party that appellant had shot Majujan Ali with a rifle and he made G.D. Entry No.563 exhibit 11 of the information. The G.D. Entry clearly mentions the name of appellant as assailant of Majujan Ali. According to his evidence, Sub-Inspector - Imran Hussain had seized one rifle and 49 cartridges from the possession of appellant vide exhibit 1 which were allotted to him. This witness says that though 50 rounds of cartridges were allotted, only 49 could be seized because one was used by the appellant. According to his evidence, Sub-Inspector - Imran Hussain had seized one rifle and 49 cartridges from the possession of appellant vide exhibit 1 which were allotted to him. This witness says that though 50 rounds of cartridges were allotted, only 49 could be seized because one was used by the appellant. Ranjit Kumar Baruah has proved the seizure and signature of Imran Hussain because the latter had met with an accident and was confined to bed. 11. Pradip Kumar Choudhury (PW-19) was posted as Sub Inspector in Sivsagar Police Station. He has testified that he had seized one empty cartridge of .303 rifle which he found near the bed of appellant. This witness has proved the seizure of empty cartridge as exhibit 10. The witnesses to seizure, namely – Ram Chandra Das (PW-1), Kamal Chandra Bora (PW-2) and Amrit Konwar (PW-3) have confirmed the seizure of empty cartridge and other ammunitions including the rifle from the possession of appellant. The rifle and empty cartridge were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and the report exhibit 13 confirmed that cartridge was fired by the seized gun. 12. Padum Pradhan (PW-14) in his evidence has confirmed that appellant had quarreled with him and Majujan Ali over a fish and had threatened to take revenge. Ram Chandra Das (PW-1) and Kamal Chandra Bora (PW-2) have deposed that appellant was creating disturbance at the Circuit House after consuming alcohol and on receiving information, the Superintendent of Police directed them to withdraw him from there, pursuant to which, they caught hold of the appellant and thereafter seized all the ammunitions which were allotted to him. 13. On scanning the entire evidence brought on record, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the trial court that appellant alone was the perpetrator of the crime. 14. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.