Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 838 (GAU)

Raj Mahato v. State of Assam

2016-09-05

AJIT SINGH, N.CHAUDHURY

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. The sole appellant Raj Mahato has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for remaining period of life. The trial court has however omitted to impose a mandatory sentence of fine. 2. The victim of the incident was Pallabi Deb, a young girl, aged about 16 years. 3. According to the prosecution case, Pallabi Deb used to go for tuition every morning. On 1.5.2013 around 8 a.m. she boarded a Tempo of Md. Abu Bakkar siddique (PW-3). After some distance, the appellant also boarded the same Tempo. On way, but for Pallabi and appellant, all other passengers get down from the Tempo on reaching their respective destinations. Thereafter, as the Tempo reached Welcome Kerosene Oil Depot, Md. Abu Bakkar Siddique suddenly heard an unusual sound and when he turned around, he saw the appellant causing injuries to Pallabi with a knife. Md. Siddique immediately stopped the Tempo and raised an alarm. Pallabi fell from the Tempo on the road but the appellant continued to cause injuries to her. The incident created a panic and public gathered at the spot. The public also caught the appellant. After some time, the police arrived at the spot and took the appellant into custody. In the meantime, father Prasanta Kumar Deb (PW-14), Anuradha Choudhury Deb (PW-15) and Pranab Kumar Deb (PW-5), Uncle of Pallabi also reached the place of occurrence and found her lying in a pool of blood with multiple injuries on her body. At the time of incident, Md. Sahajahan Sk. (PW-4) was the Handyman of Tempo. Jahangir Ahmed (PW-1) and Md.Azad Hussain (PW-2) are eye witnesses to the incident apart from Md. Abu Bakkar Siddique (PW-3) and Md. Sahajahan Sk (PW-4). From the spot, the police seized one knife, one black coloured bag containing one wrist watch, one Samsung mobile, one I-card in the name of appellant and other articles vide seizure memo exhibit 1. Ejahar of the incident was made by Pranab Kumar Deb (PW-5), Uncle of Pallabi on 1.5.2013 itself wherein appellant has been categorically named as the assailant. 5. The police immediately carried Pallabi and appellant to Dhubri Civil Hospital for treatment. There she was examined by Dr. Reza M.A. Amin (PW-18). He found multiple incised wounds all over her body. His injury report is exhibit 10. 5. The police immediately carried Pallabi and appellant to Dhubri Civil Hospital for treatment. There she was examined by Dr. Reza M.A. Amin (PW-18). He found multiple incised wounds all over her body. His injury report is exhibit 10. The doctor also opined that injuries could have been caused with the seized knife Material Exhibit 1. Since the condition of Pallabi was not improving, she was shifted to Gauhati Medical Collage & Hospital. But, there she succumbed to injuries on 3.5.2013. 6. Dr. R. Chaliha (PW-23) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Pallabi. He too found number of stitched wounds all over the body and confirmed that they were caused by sharp edged weapon and cause of death of Pallabi was due to such injuries which were ante mortem in nature. The post mortem examination report is exhibit 16. 7. During trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. 8. The trial court essentially relying upon the evidence of eye witnesses convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. The trial court also relied upon the injury and post mortem examination reports. 9. As mentioned above, Md. Abu Bakkar Siddique (PW-3) and Md. Sahajahan Sk (PW-4) are Driver and Handyman of the Tempo in which the incident began. Both are eye witnesses and they have no animosity against the appellant. Both have testified in one voice that first Pallabi had boarded the Tempo and after some distance the appellant also boarded the same. According to their evidence when the Tempo reached the Welcome Kerosene Oil Depot, the appellant repeatedly inflicted injuries to Pallabi with a knife where after they stopped the Tempo and raised an alarm. These witnesses say that public responded and gathered at the spot and even caught hold of the appellant. The evidence of these two witnesses is also corroborated by the evidence of Jahangir Ahmed (PW-1) and Md. Azad Hussain (PW-2) who too are eye witnesses of the incident. According to them, they saw the appellant stabbing Pallabi with a knife on a road immediately when the Tempo suddenly stopped near Welcome Kerosene Oil Depot and she fell from it. They have confirmed that public caught hold of the appellant and handed over his custody to police on its arrival. Injury report exhibit 10 prepared by Dr. According to them, they saw the appellant stabbing Pallabi with a knife on a road immediately when the Tempo suddenly stopped near Welcome Kerosene Oil Depot and she fell from it. They have confirmed that public caught hold of the appellant and handed over his custody to police on its arrival. Injury report exhibit 10 prepared by Dr. Reza M.A. Amin (PW-18) and the post mortem examination report exhibit 16 prepared by Dr. R Chaliha (PW-23) substantially corroborates the evidence of eye witnesses–(i) Jahangir Ahmed (PW-1), Md. Azad Hussain (PW-2), Md. Abu Bakkar Siddique (PW-3) and Md. Sahajahan Sk (PW-4). 10. Anuradha Choudhury Deb (PW-15) is the mother of Pallabi. She says that she received a distress telephonic call from Pallabi and got alarmed. She then persuaded Prasanta Kumar Deb (PW-14) to look after Pallabi where after both of them along with Pranab Kumar Deb (PW-5) went to the spot and found Pallabi lying on the road in a pool of blood with multiple injuries and the appellant confined by the public. Thus, they also corroborate the evidence of eye witnesses. Sadly, it could not be known why the appellant became wild and incessantly stabbed Pallabi with a knife in a public place. Be that as it may, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the finding of the trial court that appellant alone was the perpetrator of the crime. 11. The punishment provided for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is imprisonment for life and fine. The Sessions Judge did not impose any fine as he sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for remaining period of life. We, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, deem it proper to modify the sentence and order the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5000/- or in default for payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months. 12. With the above modification, the appeal is dismissed.