Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 807 (GAU)

Dhananjoy Rajuwar v. State of Assam

2016-08-26

AJIT SINGH, N.CHAUDHURY

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. The sole appellant Dhananjoy Rajuwar 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 Mongla Bhumji, aged about 50 years. 3. According to the prosecution case, 6 (six) months prior to the date of incident, son Sukura of Mongla had caused injuries to the appellant with a sword. The appellant, therefore, nursed a grudge against Sukura and members of his family. On 8.5.2011, at about 4.30 PM, Mongla was on road and going somewhere. Seeing him, the appellant called Mongla by name and said that his son Sukura had cut him on his right hand and therefore, he will have to bear the consequences. Mongla replied by saying that he does not know anything about cutting by Sukura. But the appellant attacked Mongla with a sword and caused multiple injuries to him, due to which, he died on the spot. Ejahar exhibit 2 of the incident was lodged by Biren Bhumij (PW-3), another son of Mongla. The incident was witnessed by Radesam Rajuwar (PW-2) and Sukumoni Munda (PW-4). Executive Magistrate, Charaideo, Sonari prepared inquest report on the dead body of Mongla exhibit 3. The dead body of Mongla was lying on the road in a pool of blood. 4. On 9.5.2011, the police arrested the appellant and seized one sword from his possession. The seizure of sword is exhibit 4. Sahid Mondal (PW-5), Moniram Rajuwar (PW-6) and Luhit Likson (PW-7) are witnesses to the seizure of sword from the possession of appellant. 5. On 9.5.2011, Dr. Lalit Bora (PW-1) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Mongla. He found multiple cut injuries on the upper parts of the body. The doctor in his post mortem examination report exhibit 1 opined that Mongla died due to multiple cut injuries, which were caused by a sharp cutting weapon. 6. The appellant on his request was produced before Shah Syed Ahadur Rahman, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Charaideo, Sonari (PW-9) on 9.5.2011 for making confession. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate gave reflection time to the appellant and recorded his confessional statement on 10.5.2011 under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant in his confessional statement admitted that he had killed Mongla. The confessional statement is exhibit 5. 7. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate gave reflection time to the appellant and recorded his confessional statement on 10.5.2011 under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant in his confessional statement admitted that he had killed Mongla. The confessional statement is exhibit 5. 7. During trial, at the stage of framing of charge, on 24.10.2011, the appellant admitted his guilt. Yet, the trial court thought it proper to proceed with the trial and decide the same on merit. It is relevant to mention here that appellant again admitted his guilt, while being examined as an accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as confessional statement of appellant, convicted and sentenced him, as aforesaid. 9. As mentioned above, Radesam Rajuwar (PW-2) and Sukumoni Munda (PW-4) are eye witnesses to the incident. They have categorically deposed that appellant caused multiple cut injuries to Mongla with a sword due to which he died. In the brief cross examination of these witnesses, nothing has been suggested by the appellant to disbelieve them. 10. Shah Syed Adadur Rahman has testified that he recorded the confessional statement of appellant after giving him reflection time and informing about its consequences. According to the evidence of Shah Syed Ahadur Rahman, the appellant voluntarily and truthfully confessed that he had killed Mongla. On scanning the evidence of this witness, we are also convinced that confessional statement of appellant was recorded strictly in conformity with the provisions of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. Dr. Lalit Bora (PW-1) has confirmed that Mongla died due to multiple cut injuries, which were caused by a sharp cutting weapon. The medical evidence, thus, fully corroborates the evidence of eye witnesses as well as the confessional statement of appellant. Even the seizure of sword from the possession of appellant has been proved by witnesses Sahid Mandal (PW-5), Moniram Rajuwar (PW-6) and Luhit Likson (PW-7). And finally, the appellant, while being examined as an accused, reiterated that it was he alone, who killed Mongla. 12. For these reasons, there is no iota of doubt that appellant was the perpetrator of the crime. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.