Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 876 (GAU)

ARABIAN MURMU v. STATE OF ASSAM

2016-09-20

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : Manojit Bhuyan, J. The appellant Sri Arabian Murmo @ Raising Murmo has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay with Fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default. rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month for the murder of one Jeta Murmu, aged about 65 years, whose corps was found in a decomposed state in the house of the appellant. 2. On 03.04.2009, an ejahar (Ext.-1) was lodged before the Officer In-charge, Udalguri Police Station by Lazarus Hasda (PW-1), Secretary of the Village Defence Party and Kamel Hasda, both resident of No. 2 Sapekhaiti (Bagantola) Village. The said ejahar dated 03.04.2009 was received and registered as Udalguri Police Station Case No. 54/2009 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The contents of the ejahar was that the appellant, who is the resident of No. 2 Sapekhaiti (Bagantola) Village had killed an unidentified person and left the dead body in his own house. As a foul smell was emanating from the house of the appellant, the neighbours of the appellant had informed the Village Defence Party as well as the Gaonburha of the village. The Gaoburha accompanied by the Village Defence Party had gone to the appellant's house and saw a dead body of an unidentified person lying on the floor inside the appellant's house. Durendra Nath Hazowary (PW-7), who was entrusted with the investigation of the case in his capacity as the Sub-Inspector of Police, In-charge of Bhairabkunda Outpost under Udalguri Police Station immediately proceeded to the place of occurrence upon the lodging of the ejahar dated 03.04.2009. He witnessed dead body of a male person inside the house of the accused and held inquest on the dead body on the following day. He examined the witnesses and also arrested the appellant. The weapon of offence being an axe was produced from inside his house and while doing so had also confessed that he had used it in the occurrence. The post mortem examination of the deceased i.e. Jeta Murmu was carried out on 04.04.2009 by Dr. Samsul Hoque (PW-3). The Post Mortem Report (Ext. 4) described the external appearance as that a dead male body in a state of decomposition with Rigormortis......and Magoot present ; all over the body. Injury found was that of a contusion of size 4 x 2 cm. Samsul Hoque (PW-3). The Post Mortem Report (Ext. 4) described the external appearance as that a dead male body in a state of decomposition with Rigormortis......and Magoot present ; all over the body. Injury found was that of a contusion of size 4 x 2 cm. on the left side of the chest in the deep muscles over the 3rd and 4th ribs. Medical opinion rendered was that death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of injury sustained with the injuries being ante mortem in nature. 3. During trial, as many as 8(eight) witnesses were examined by the prosecution side. Lazarus Hasda (PW-1) being the Secretary of the Village Defence Party and the informant in the case, deposed that on getting news from his wife, who in turn, was asked by one Bichitra Narayan Basumatary who tell her husband that a dead body is lying in the house of the appellant and went to the appellant's house and saw the dead body lying on the floor of the appellant's house. According to the P W-1, when he had put questions, the appellant replied to him in presence of people who had gathered here, that he had killed the person inside his house by hacking him with an axe on the head. According to him, the appellant confessed his guilt and in the presence of the PW-1, the accused had produced an axe from his house, which the Police seized through Ext-3. On course, the PW-1 deposed that he did not mention in the ejahar that the appellant had confessed his guilt. He also stated that the appellant sells liquor in the village and he can do only light works with his right hand but not in heavy works. Suren Daimary (PW-2) is the Village Headman, who upon getting information from the Secretary of the Village Defence Party, had visited the appellant's house and saw a male person died on the floor of the appellant's house. He also deposed that the wife of the appellant had told him that the person lying on the floor was killed by the appellant. Dr. Samsul Hoque (PW-3) is the Medical Officer, who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of Jeta Murm. In his deposition he described the external appearance of the dead body as well as the injuries present. Dr. Samsul Hoque (PW-3) is the Medical Officer, who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of Jeta Murm. In his deposition he described the external appearance of the dead body as well as the injuries present. Opinion was rendered to the extent that death had been caused due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of the injuries sustained with all injuries being ante mortem in nature. Bimal Murmu (PW-4), who is the brother of the deceased Jeta Murmu also deposed that he had visited the police station and saw Jeta's dead body lying on the floor of the appellant's house. He also deposed that in his presence the police had seized an axe and he is a seizure witness to Ext-3. On course, he also deposed that the appellant while saying that he had killed Jeta Murmu with an axe, handed over the axe to the police. Sri Raju Kisko (PW-5) being the son-in-law of the deceased as well as Maloli Murmu (PW-6) being the daughter of the deceased also deposed that they had gone over to the appellant's house and found Jeta Mmrmu lying dead. PW-6 also stated that he identified her father's dead body. Durendra Nath Hazowary (PW-7) is the police personnel with the investigation of the case. He has testified to the extent of having seen the dead body of a male person inside the house of the appellant and that appellant had also produced an axe from inside his house confessing that he had used the same in the incident. That witness have been examined, inquest was made, weapon of offence was seized, arrest of the appellant and sending the dead body for post mortem examination and in collecting the report thereof are part of the deposition of PW-7. Salita Hembram (PW-8) is the wife of the appellant. In her testimony she stated that she could sense foul smell from near the piles of firewood and on removing the same, she could see a decomposed dead body. In the statement of the appellant under Section 313 CrPC and against the Question No. 1 regarding dead body being found inside his house, the appellant admitted to the same but denied of having killed the person. In the said statement, he also stated that his right hand is useless and therefore he could not have killed the person. In the statement of the appellant under Section 313 CrPC and against the Question No. 1 regarding dead body being found inside his house, the appellant admitted to the same but denied of having killed the person. In the said statement, he also stated that his right hand is useless and therefore he could not have killed the person. Also he has two houses and that he does not live in the house from where the dead body was recovered. Only stores firewood in that house. He also stated that getting some smell, he had also gone to the house to see and found a dead body there. Apart from the aforesaid statement, the defence did not produce any witnesses. 4. On the broad prospect above, the prosecution was able to prove the facts that the body of Jeta Murmu was found in the house of the appellant as well as the weapon of offence that had been made over to the police by the appellant. The prosecution was also able to prove that the death of Jeta Murmu was homicidal in nature with injury found on the left side of the chest in the deep muscle over the 3rd and 4th ribs of the deceased that is Jeta Murmu. 5. Although there were no eye witnesses to the occurrence, the learned Court below, on the basis of the extrajudicial confession made by the appellant and surrounding circumstances held the case of the prosecution being proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 6. We have heard Mr. K. Goswami, learned Amicus Curiae as well as Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 7. Indeed, there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence of the crime. However, on a careful perusal of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses as well as the materials on record and exhibited, we have endeavoured to ascertain whether the inference of guilt of the appellant drawn from circumstances are cogently and firmly established and whether the circumstances cumulatively form a chain to complete the circumstances from where there can be no escape but to hold that the crime have been committed by the appellant and none else. Also, whether the circumstantial evidence is conclusive in nature to bring home the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Also, whether the circumstantial evidence is conclusive in nature to bring home the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. First and foremost, the deposition of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-8 stating that the dead body of Jeta Murmu was found in the house of the appellant have remained unshakened and undustirbed. To this end, the appellant had no explanation as to how the dead body was found lying in his house. Also, there is no evidence to show that even when he discovered the body in his house, he did not informed the matter to anybody and/or to the Police. Fact remains that the dead body was discovered in his house. Second is the discovery of weapon of offence i.e. the axe which the appellant had handed over to the Police in presence of the PW-1 and PW-4, which forms part of the deposition of the said witnesses and that have remained unrebutted. The death of Jeta Murmu being homicidal in nature is also proved from the Post Mortem Report. Whether the contusion of size 4 x 2 cm. was found present on the left of the chest of Jeta Murmu in the deep muscles over the 3rd and 4th ribs of the decomposed body. The medical opinion of the Doctor was also to the effect that death had been caused due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of injury so sustained. Even in the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 CrPC, there is no clear explanation demonstrating his defence and/or how the dead body came to be found in his house. In the said statement under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant have himself admitted of the body being discovered in his house. Although extrajudicial confession is a weak piece of evidence requiring proposition with great cautioned, in the instant case, the deposition of PW-1 and PW-7, despite being subjected to cross-examination, have remained unshakened as to the extrajudicial confession made by the appellant. 8. The circumstances above completes the chain to conclusively determine that the crime had been committed by the appellant and none else. The guilt of the appellant finds cogently and firmly established from the circumstances surrounding the case. The circumstances proving the guilt of the accused is conclusive in nature with exclusion of every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. 9. The guilt of the appellant finds cogently and firmly established from the circumstances surrounding the case. The circumstances proving the guilt of the accused is conclusive in nature with exclusion of every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. 9. From the foregoing discussions and findings, we find no merit in the appeal and the same stands accordingly dismissed.