Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 870 (GAU)

Santosh Barman v. State of Assam

2016-09-19

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. The sole appellant Santosh Barman has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation. 2. The victim of the incident was Minati Barman, aged about 31 years. She was wife of the appellant. 3. According to the prosecution case, on 28.4.2010 around 9.30 a.m., the appellant hacked his wife Minati to death with a dao in his house. The head of Minati was completely severed from her body. Both of them lived in a small one room house at village Gilaguri Part-II under the jurisdiction of Abhayapuri Police Station. Paritosh Barman (PW-1) is younger brother of appellant and lived separately in his own house. The houses of appellant and Paritosh were, however, contiguous. Ejahar of the incident was made by Paritosh at Police Station Abhayapuri. On receiving the information, Investigating Officer-Dipak Baishya (PW-7) rushed to the spot and prepared the sketch map etc. He also arrested the appellant with a dao from the office premises of Sub-Divisional Officer, where he was loitering. 4. Dr. Ajay Chandra Rabha (PW-4) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Minati. He found the head of Minati was completely severed from the body and there was an injury on upper chest wall also. The doctor opined that Minati died due to head injury which was caused by sharp cutting weapon. His post mortem examination report is exhibit 3. 5. During trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. According to the appellant, at the time of incident, he was at Ghilaguri Bazar, where he got the information and on coming home, he saw the dead body of Minati. 6. But the trial court relying upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 7. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that in the absence of any eye witness against him, the trial court committed an illegality in convicting him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. In Ganeshlal Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 3 SCC 106 , the accused was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. 8. In Ganeshlal Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 3 SCC 106 , the accused was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. In this case, the Supreme Court observed that when the death had occurred in the custody of accused, he is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 has again approved the well settled principle that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and that accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. In this case the Supreme Court has also held that where a husband is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling house where the husband also normally resided and if the husband does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it was a strong circumstance pointing that he alone was responsible for the commission of crime. 10. There is yet another decision of the Supreme Court, State of Rajashthan vs. Kashi Ram, AIR 2007 SC 144 wherein it is held that when the accused was last seen with his murdered wife, he must give explanation or plead alibi in support of his innocence or else it would be a strong circumstance against him pointing towards his guilt. 11. In the present case, the beheaded body of Minati was found on the floor in the appellant’s house where both of them lived. The house had only one room. 11. In the present case, the beheaded body of Minati was found on the floor in the appellant’s house where both of them lived. The house had only one room. According to the evidence of Paritosh, while he was at the place of his work about 3 k.m. from home, he received a telephonic message from Badal Chandra Barman regarding the death of Minati. On receiving the information, he immediately rushed to the house of appellant where he found beheaded body of Minati lying on the floor. At that time, around 100 people (neighbours) had gathered in the courtyard of appellant and all of them told that appellant had killed Minati with a dao. The appellant was not at home and later he came to know that he had surrendered to police. 12. Manu Ray (PW-2) has deposed that he and appellant worked together as Carpenters and on the date of incident, around 10 a.m., both of them met at a common meeting place and soon thereafter, the appellant went home to bring his Tiffin to be taken to work place. But after about 15 minutes, he returned to the common meeting place with a blood stained dao in an agitated mood. According to Manu Ray, on seeing the appellant in such a condition, he threw away his bi-cycle and ran towards his home raising an alarm. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination of witnesses–Paritosh Barman (PW-1) and Manu Ray (PW-2) to discredit their evidence. In fact, both of these witnesses had cordial relations with the appellant. They therefore have no reason to falsely implicate the appellant. It is also to be noted that no explanation whatsoever has been given by the appellant regarding homicidal death of Minati. He simply stated that he was at the Ghilaguri Bazar at the time of incident where he was informed about the incident. He has not examined any person to prove that he was in fact at the Ghilaguri Bazar when the incident took place. 13. We, therefore, having regard to the above referred decisions of the Supreme Court as well as the evidence of Paritosh Barman and Manu Ray find ourselves in complete agreement with the finding of the trial court that appellant alone was the perpetrator of the crime. 14. For these reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.