Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 804 (GAU)

Bijoy Singh v. State of Assam

2016-08-26

AJIT SINGH, N.CHAUDHURY

body2016
JUDGMENT & ORDER : N. Chaudhury, J. In this appeal against conviction appellant Bijoy Singh has challenged his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for further six months. This judgment of conviction was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaon, on 05.05.2015 in Sessions Case No.399(N)/2013. 2. The prosecution story is that one Rina Tanti as informant lodged an ejahar with Officer-in-charge of Missa Outpost on 20.10.2012 informing that at around 8.00 p.m. on 19.10.2012 her husband Gobardhan Tanti went outside to urinate after having his meal. While he was entering the house accused Bijoy Singh, who is the husband of her elder sister, being in inebriated state dealt a dao blow on the neck of Gobardhan and killed him. On the basis of the aforesaid ejahar with Missa Outpost, Kaliabor Police Station Case No.108/2012 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and investigation started. Police recorded statements of the witnesses, held inquest over the dead body and sent it for post mortem examination. Ultimately, after receipt of the post mortem report charge-sheet was filed on 31.12.2012 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Kaliabor who on turn committed the same to the Court of Sessions. Sessions Case No. 399/2013 was registered accordingly. On being transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed. The charge was read over to the accused whereupon he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. In course of trial, prosecution examined seven witnesses including medical officer and investigating officer. 4. PW 1, Rina Tanti, stated in course of her deposition that her husband was a permanent worker of the Kellyden Tea Estate wherein the accused was a temporary worker. The accused used to request the deceased for helping him to become permanent which the deceased did not. In view of this accused was giving continuous threat to her husband that he would kill him. Initially they did not take it seriously. On the fateful day at around 8.00 p.m. when her husband went outside to urinate, there was darkness. He called his daughter Lakshmi to come outside with light and thereupon Lakshmi went out with a torch in her hand. Initially they did not take it seriously. On the fateful day at around 8.00 p.m. when her husband went outside to urinate, there was darkness. He called his daughter Lakshmi to come outside with light and thereupon Lakshmi went out with a torch in her hand. She saw the accused Bijoy hacking a dao blow on the neck of her father whereupon he fell down. PW 1 claimed to be inside the room. Hearing cry of her daughter, she came out and found cut injury in the neck of her husband. Blood was oozing out. Her daughter chased the accused but the latter entered into the room. In course of her deposition she disclosed that the accused is the husband of her elder sister and they lived in another room of the same quarter. She proved the ejahar. In course of her cross-examination she further disclosed that the accused was sleeping in the house after taking meal and liquor. When her husband went outside there was no light. Her daughter saw the accused hacking dao blow on the neck her husband. 5. PW 2, Lakshmi Tanti, is the daughter of the deceased. She stated that at around 8.00 p.m. her father went out to urinate. She came outside following her father and then saw accused Bijoy Singh hacking a dao blow on the neck of her father. Her father fell down on the ground. Accused chased her but she ran inside the jungle and saved her life. When her mother raised hue and cry neighbouring people arrived who took her father to hospital of the Tea Estate. She also accompanied and then police came and took away the dead body to Nagaon. After holding post mortem examination police returned the dead body. Police arrested the accused. 6. PW 3 is Sri Ramnath Reddy who is an employee of the same Tea Estate. He is a neighbour and after having come to know about the incident he went to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of Gobardhan Tanti. He saw cut injury on his neck and came to know from the people around that the accused had caused the injury. 7. PW 4, Bikram Kheria, is yet another neighbour. Having heard hulla he thought it was a marpit and rushed to the place of occurrence. He heard that dead body of Gobardhan was already taken to hospital. He saw cut injury on his neck and came to know from the people around that the accused had caused the injury. 7. PW 4, Bikram Kheria, is yet another neighbour. Having heard hulla he thought it was a marpit and rushed to the place of occurrence. He heard that dead body of Gobardhan was already taken to hospital. He went to hospital and saw the dead body. He heard that accused had killed the victim. 8. PW 5, Sri Dhaniram Mallik, is an employee of the Tea Estate. He has not seen the incident. He heard that accused had killed Gobardhan. Police came but he did not go to the house of the deceased. He denied of giving any signature to seizure list. 9. Dr. Dulan Gohain was examined as PW 6. He proved the injuries as follows :- “On examination, I found the following :- Dead body of an average built male, about 45 years old. Rigor mortis present. Sharp cut injury about 2 inch x 1 ½ inch on neck just above the left clavicle directed backwards, medially and downwards with clotted blood. Heard chambers are empty. Carotid artery on left cut and collapsed. Injury described is ante mortem in nature.” According to him, death was due to shock and haemorrahge as a result of the injury sustained. 10. PW 7, Biraj Mohan Deka, Sub-Inspector of Police, was the investigating officer in the case. He stated that an ejahar was lodged at 8.30 a.m. on 20.10.2012 by PW 1. He made G.D. Entry No.294 immediately and forwarded the ejahar to Kaliabor Police Station for registering a case. Kaliabor Police Station Case No.108/2012 was accordingly registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He claimed to have visited the place of occurrence at Kellyden Tea Estate and found the accused person Bijoy Singh alias Bejal Singh. He recorded the statements of the witnesses, seized the dao and then arranged inquest of the dead body in Kellyden Tea Estate hospital. After having received the post mortem report he submitted the charge-sheet along with all relevant documents on being satisfied that there was a prima facie case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused person. 11. The learned Sessions Judge examined the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on all material points when the accused only denied the charges. 11. The learned Sessions Judge examined the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on all material points when the accused only denied the charges. He claimed that he did not know anything as he had taken liquor. The incident had taken place on the date when bonus payment was made. He was suffering from fever and as such was sleeping at that time. He did not know what happened to Gobardhan Tanti. 12. Learned Sessions Judge after considering the aforesaid evidence on record passed by the impugned judgment on 05.05.2015 holding the accused guilty of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. He also passed an order under Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing payment of Rs.50,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased by way of victim compensation. This judgment and order has been called in question in the present appeal. 13. We have heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned Amicus Curiae, for the appellant and Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. We have also perused the evidence on record. 14. PW 1 being the wife of the deceased submitted the ejahar and stated that on the date of occurrence on 19.10.2012 at 8.00 p.m. her husband went outside to urinate after taking dinner. Since there was darkness outside he called their daughter Lakshmi to come out with light. Lakshmi came outside with a torch in hand and at that time she noticed that accused hacked a dao blow on the neck of her father causing his death. This version of PW 1 has been supported by Lakshmi Tanti as PW 2. She stated that she went outside when her father had gone out for passing urine. At that time she noticed that accused hacked blow with dao on the neck of her father when the latter was proceeding towards the room. Even in course of cross-examination she maintained that she had seen the accused committing the offence. The other prosecution witnesses came much after the incident had taken place and so their evidence is of no help. Even in course of cross-examination she maintained that she had seen the accused committing the offence. The other prosecution witnesses came much after the incident had taken place and so their evidence is of no help. Police recorded statements of PWs 1 and 2 immediately after the incident and they narrated the same material version even under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We do not find that any contradiction has been brought out by the defence in course of cross-examination of PWs 1 and 2. PW 2 being the daughter of the deceased followed her father when the deceased had gone out in the darkness to urinate. She had a torch in her hand. She claimed to have seen the accused in hacking a dao blow at the neck of her father. There is no reason as to why this witness would implicate her own uncle (husband of her maternal aunt) falsely. The prosecution has succeeded to prove its case by examining PWs 1 and 2. On the basis of the depositions of PWs 1 and 2 no room is left for confusion. The testimony of the eye-witnesses could not be dislodged by the defence in course of cross-examination. Since it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Bijoy Singh dealt a dao blow on the neck of the deceased Gobardhan Tanti in presence of PW 2 there is no scope to interfere with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge in this case. The learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error in convicting the accused/appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. The appeal is devoid of any merit. It is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence are hereby upheld. Send down the records.