Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 875 (GAU)

Hema Bhagat v. State of Assam

2016-09-20

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. The sole appellant Hema Bhagat has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation. He has also been convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation. The jail sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The victim of the incident was Puski Bhagat, aged about 34 years. 3. According to the prosecution case, the appellant had earlier killed his father-in-law and was convicted under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 20.5.2004 in Criminal Appeal No. 25(J)/1999. And later, 3-4 days prior to 3.7.2012, he beat his wife Puski Bhagat to death in his house. He then buried her dead body underneath the floor. 4. Bikash Limbu (PW-4) had seen the appellant quarrelling and beating Puski Bhagat. Where after, Bikash Limbu did not see Puski Bhagat for 3-4 days. He, therefore, became suspicious and informed about it to Village Headman Biswajit Sengupta (PW-1). Likewise, President of Village Defence Party Dipak Nandi (PW-2), Swapan Paul (PW-3) and Partha Dutta (PW-5) were also informed. All of them then went to the house of appellant. At that time, he was sitting in his courtyard. On seeing the Village Headman and President of the Village Defence Party, he tried to run away but was caught by them. And on their asking, he first told that Puski Bhagat had gone to her parental house and would return after few days. But when the mobile number of Puski Bhagat was asked, the appellant shivered and pleaded that he may not be beaten as he would disclose everything. The appellant then narrated that he had killed Puski Bhagat with a lathi and buried her body underneath the floor of his house. On hearing this, Biswajit Sengupta made the ejahar exhibit 1 at Police Station Bordubi. Investigating Officer – Moni Mohan Koch (PW-9) immediately rushed to the place of occurrence along with his team. There he found the appellant confined by the villagers. 5. The floor of the appellant’s house was then dug up by the police pursuant to his disclosure statement and body of Puski Bhagat was exhumed.The body was also identified to be that of Puski Bhagat. There he found the appellant confined by the villagers. 5. The floor of the appellant’s house was then dug up by the police pursuant to his disclosure statement and body of Puski Bhagat was exhumed.The body was also identified to be that of Puski Bhagat. The body was partially decomposed. Dr. Apurba Kumar Borthakur (PW-6) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body. He found one lacerated wound over right spinal region and one lacerated wound over both sides of chest. He also found fracture of 6th,7th,8th and 9th ribs on left side. The doctor in his post mortem examination report exhibit 5 opined that Puski Bhagat died due to blunt thoracic injury which was homicidal in nature. 6. During trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. But the trial court relying upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 7. 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. 8. 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. 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. 9. 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. 10. Admittedly, the dead body of Puski Bhagat was dug out from the appellant’s house in which both of them lived. The post mortem examination report confirmed that her death was homicidal in nature. Bikash Limbu has testified that 3-4 days prior to the date of digging of the body he had seen the appellant beating Puski Bhagat whereafter she was not seen alive. He therefore smelt foul play and informed the Village Headman Biswajit Sengupta and the President of Village Defence Party Dipak Nandi. Both of them then along with Bikash Limbu, Swapan Paul and Partha Dutta went to the house of appellant and on their asking, he confessed before them that he killed Puski Bhagat with a lathi and buried her body underneath the floor of his house. Biswajit Sengupta, Dipak Nandi, Swapan Paul and Partha Dutta have all in one voice corroborated the evidence of Bikash Limbu. They have also testified that body of Puski Bhagat was dug out by the police from the floor of the house of appellant pursuant to his disclosure statement. Biswajit Sengupta, Dipak Nandi, Swapan Paul and Partha Dutta have all in one voice corroborated the evidence of Bikash Limbu. They have also testified that body of Puski Bhagat was dug out by the police from the floor of the house of appellant pursuant to his disclosure statement. The appellant has not given any explanation regarding the homicidal death of Puski Bhagat in his house. He has also not given any explanation why her dead body was buried underneath the floor of his house. All these circumstances lead us to only one conclusion that he alone was the perpetrator of the crime. The trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence brought on record. We find no good ground to interfere with the impugned conviction and sentence. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.