Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 872 (GAU)

DASHAMI MURA v. STATE OF ASSAM

2016-09-19

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : Manojit Bhuyan, J. The appellant Smt. Dashami Mura has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month for the murder of one Birchi Murari. 2. The incident resulting in the death of Birchi occurred at about 1:30 p.m. on 21st March, 2011 in the house of the informant/PW1 located at Mouza No. 2 Dighalia under Tingkhong Police Station in the district of Dibrugarh. The First Information Report was lodged by said PW1 i.e. Sri Anil Murari, brother-in-law of the deceased. The said fist information was received and registered as Tingkhong P.S. Case No. 33/2011 under Section 302 IPC. Sri Jotin Dutta (PW10), the second officer of Tingkhong Police Station had proceeded to the place of occurrence, acting on the ejahar, and found the corpse of Birchi inside the house of the informant/PW1. Inquest Report in presence of witnesses was prepared and the cadaver of Birchi was sent for post-mortem examination. Statements of witnesses were recorded and the appellant was arrested. The weapon of offence, which was an axe, was recovered from the paddy field near the place of occurrence, as shown by the appellant. The post-mortem examination of Birchi was carried out on 22 March, 2011 by Dr. K.B. Choudhury (PW9). The Report revealed incised wounds, with size and description given therein, inflicted in the middle part of the back of the neck cutting the C2 vertebrae and spinal cord as well as on the left side of the face, back of the abdomen, back of the right chest over the right scapula and on the occipital region of the scalp. In the opinion of the doctor, death was instantaneous resulting from injury to the spinal cord with all injuries being ante mortem caused by sharp cutting heavy weapon and homicidal in nature. 3. Anil Murari (P W1), in whose house the dead body of Birchi was found, was the brother-in-law of the deceased. At the time of occurrence he was not at home and he came to learn about the incident from the villagers. When he rushed back home he found Birchi lying in an injured state and was dead. He did not find the appellant Smt. Dashimi Mura when he reached home. 4. At the time of occurrence he was not at home and he came to learn about the incident from the villagers. When he rushed back home he found Birchi lying in an injured state and was dead. He did not find the appellant Smt. Dashimi Mura when he reached home. 4. During trial, as many as 10 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Smt. Santi Mura (PW2) deposed that on 21.03.2011, which was a day of Holi, Birchi along with another woman had come to their house. The appellant Smt. Dashami Mura had also come to their house before Birchi arrived. Asking all of them to sit, PW2 had gone to her elder sister's house to bring lime and when she returned, she saw Dashami going out with an axe in hand. Inside the house, she found Birchi lying dead with cut-injury on the neck. She did not find the other woman who had accompanied Birchi. On cross, PW2 deposed that she did not witness how the incident had taken place. Testing the evidence of PW2 with that of her statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is however no statement disclosing that she had witnessed the accused going out with an axe in hand. Smt. Sameli Murari (PW3) lends credence to the case of the prosecution with her testimony that on the day of the incident she had visited the house of PW 1 and had found Birchi present there. As her son was annoying her, she had come out of the house. At that time she heard sound inside the house and when she went back, found Birchi lying dead inside the house. She had also seen Dashami going out of the house carrying an axe. PW3 deposed that she was not aware from which direction Dashami had come but only saw her going out. On cross, she deposed that at the time of the incident the wife of PW 1 was in the house. She and Birchi had gone together to the house of PW 1 and had consumed liquor. The evidence of PW3 finds support from her statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Sri Ghana Mura (PW6) deposed that on the date of incident, he had made a social visit to Birchi's house and after consuming liquor he was sleeping. She and Birchi had gone together to the house of PW 1 and had consumed liquor. The evidence of PW3 finds support from her statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Sri Ghana Mura (PW6) deposed that on the date of incident, he had made a social visit to Birchi's house and after consuming liquor he was sleeping. Dashami had come to the house carrying an axe in her hand shouting that she will hack Mel, the husband of Birchi. He woke up and snatched the axe away from Dashami and threw it away. When the police personnel had come and made enquiry, he showed them the place where the axe was thrown, whereupon the police seized the weapon of offence. Sri Jatin Dutta (PW 10), the Police Officer entrusted with the case, deposed that he found the dead body inside the house of the informant. He prepared the Inquest Report and had sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He also deposed that the weapon of offence i.e. an axe, was recovered from the paddy field near the place of occurrence, as showed by Dashami. Seizure List (Ext.-3) as well as the Sketch Map (Ext.-6) was duly prepared and endorsed under his signature. He also deposed that he collected the Post-mortem Examination Report (Ext.-4) and had submitted Charge Sheet (Ext.-7). On cross, he also deposed that the finger prints on the axe and the blood of the deceased was not sent for chemical examination. 5. On the broad aspects above, the prosecution was able to prove the following facts; the deceased along with the appellant and Sameli Murari (PW3) had visited the house of Anil Murari (PW1) on 21.03.2011. Although there were no direct eye-witnesses, the deposition of PW3 has provided cogent circumstantial evidence of witnessing Dashaini going out of the house with an axe in hand. Although she had come out of the house as her son was annoying her, she had gone back inside the house on hearing a sound and found Birchi lying dead. The very next incident in the chain was that she saw Dashami going out of the house carrying an axe. The next circumstantial evidence is the testimony of Sri Ghana Mura (PW6) who, on the said day, was at Birchi's house and was sleeping after consuming liquor. The very next incident in the chain was that she saw Dashami going out of the house carrying an axe. The next circumstantial evidence is the testimony of Sri Ghana Mura (PW6) who, on the said day, was at Birchi's house and was sleeping after consuming liquor. He woke up when Dashami had come there carrying an axe in her hand and shouting all along that she would hack the husband of Birchi. The weapon of offence was recovered by the police from the paddy field near the place of occurrence and the nature of injuries to which Birchi had succumbed to, was established from the evidence of Dr. K.B. Choudhury (PW9) as well as from the Post-mortem Report (Ext.-4). The defence declined to adduce evidence and the examination of Dashami under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was broadly a case of denial and it being a false case. 6. The learned Amicus Curiae makes submission that there are inherent contradictions in the prosecution case regarding the site of recovery of the weapon of offence. He submits that at least Karen Murari (PW7) as well as Sanu Murari (PW7) (sic) have deposed that police had seized one axe from the place of occurrence. He also submits that the material evidence i.e. the axe had not been sent for chemical examination. On these short grounds alone, learned Amicus Curiae submits that there are holes in the prosecution case and therefore the benefit of doubt must tilt in favour of the appellant. Mr. D. Das, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence-on-record clearly goes to show the guilt of the appellant and also submits that the circumstantial evidence appreciated in its entirety, unerringly and conclusively establishes that the offence of murder had been committed by the appellant and no one else. 7. Taking a closer view of the facts and the materials-on-record, one thing that stands out that there is no evidence of any quarrel between Birchi and Dashami. The entire case, as laid out by the prosecution, rests on circumstantial evidence to bring home the guilt of Dashami beyond all reasonable doubt. Without any doubt, if a case is laid on circumstantial evidence, it has to be tested on the well recognised parameters. The inference of guilt which is sought to be drawn from circumstances must be cogently and firmly established and the same must unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. Without any doubt, if a case is laid on circumstantial evidence, it has to be tested on the well recognised parameters. The inference of guilt which is sought to be drawn from circumstances must be cogently and firmly established and the same must unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. The test is also to ascertain that the circumstances taken must cumulatively form a chain to complete a circumstance from where there can be no option but that the crime was committed by the accused and none else. Lastly, the circumstances must be conclusive in nature with exclusion of every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. 8. Keeping in mind the above parameter s, in the instant case the evidence of Sameli Murari (PW3) and Ghana Mura (PW6) assumes great significance. PW3 in her deposition has stated that she had seen Dashami going out of the house of PW1 carrying an axe. When she had rushed back inside the house she found Birchi lying dead. PW6 had deposed that while she was in Birchi's house, Dashami had come to the house carrying an axe in hand and shouting that she would hack the husband of Birchi. The presence of Dashami in the house of PW 1 is testified by Santi Mura (PW2) who is the wife of PW1, stating that Dashami had come over to their house before Birchi arrived. To complete the chain of events, the weapon of offence was also recovered from the paddy field as shown by Dashami herself. These circumstances played a crucial role in establishing the guilt of the appellant i.e. Dashami. Her intention and state of mind to inflict injury by means of the axe is also brought home by the deposition of PW6. Another vital incriminating circumstance as revealed from her examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is the fact that she had gone to the house on PW2 on the day of the incident. 9. We have already discussed the facts and circumstances of the case appearing against the appellant from the evidence on record. Our discussion above only lead to one conclusion that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant is in strict accordance with law. The charge and conviction under Section 302 IPC stands conclusively proved against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. We find no merit in this appeal and, accordingly, the same stands dismissed. Our discussion above only lead to one conclusion that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant is in strict accordance with law. The charge and conviction under Section 302 IPC stands conclusively proved against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. We find no merit in this appeal and, accordingly, the same stands dismissed. The conviction and sentence against the appellant rendered by Judgment dated 26.4.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Sessions Case no. 122/2011 stands affirmed.