Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 894 (GAU)

Pramod Ranjan Goswami v. State of Assam

2016-09-28

AJIT SINGH, N.CHAUDHURY

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. Appellant Promod Ranjan Goswami 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. By the same judgment, the trial court has acquitted co-accused persons, namely, Prahlad Goswami and Kanu Goswami. 2. The victim of incident was Kulendra Chandra Das, aged about 45 years. 3. According to the prosecution case, the appellant and Kulendra lived as neighbours in village Madarpur falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Katigorah. They were thus known to each other. On 22.9.2005, at about 10 a.m., the appellant along with his brothers Prahlad Goswami and Kanu Goswami and son Keshab Goswami was erecting a bamboo fence on the western side of Kulendra’s house. And while erecting the fence, they also encroached upon a portion of land used as “Path” by the villagers. Aggrieved with the encroachment on Pathway, Kulendra objected and requested the appellant to erect the fence in a straight line. But the appellant became furious and started a hot altercation with Kulendra. Thereafter, he mercilessly dealt a blow on the neck of Kulendra with a dao. At that point of time, Prahlad Goswami also gave a sabol blow, whereas Kanu and Keshab gave one blow each with lathi and spade. Pampi Rani Das (PW-1) is daughter of Kulendra. She saw the assault on him and immediately rushed to intervene. She somehow brought Kulendra to the courtyard of their house, where he succumbed to neck injury caused with a dao by the appellant. One co-villager Kanti Mohan Das (PW-3) telephonically informed the police whereupon Officer In-charge Abdul Hai Choudhury (PW-8) of Police Station Katigorah immediately came to the place of occurrence. Pampi Rani Das made the written ejahar exhibit 1 at the place of occurrence itself. Abdul Hai Choudhury then made the inquest on the dead body. He also seized one dao and one iron crowbar from the house of appellant vide exhibit 4. These weapons were produced by co-accused Prahlad Goswami. 4. On 23.9.2005, Dr. R Chaliha conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Kulendra. He found one incised wound over the back of neck in left side 17 x 7 cm extending across the left ear and cutting it and extending to the right side exposing the brain. These weapons were produced by co-accused Prahlad Goswami. 4. On 23.9.2005, Dr. R Chaliha conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Kulendra. He found one incised wound over the back of neck in left side 17 x 7 cm extending across the left ear and cutting it and extending to the right side exposing the brain. The doctor opined that Kulendra died due to neck injury which was ante mortem and caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon. The post mortem examination report is exhibit 9 and was proved by Gunojit Das, who had worked with Dr. R Chaliha. 5. Abdul Hai Choudhury after investigation filed the charge sheet against the appellant, Prahlad Goswami and Kanu Goswami for an offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Since Keshab Goswami was found to be a minor, he was produced before the Juvenile Court. 6. During trial, the accused persons including the appellant abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication. But the trial court, as mentioned above, convicted the appellant alone for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted Prahlad Goswami and Kanu Goswami. They were acquitted because the Trial Court did not find any corresponding injury on the body of Kulendra alleged to have been caused by them. The Trial Court also found that there could be possibility of their false implication because they happen to be brothers of the appellant. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and we are of the considered opinion that the appeal has no merit. As mentioned above, Pampi Rani Das is daughter of Kulendra. The incident took place just on the western side of their house. She, therefore, had the occasion to see the incident. According to her, the appellant and the acquitted coaccused persons were erecting bamboo fence and while doing so, they encroached upon a portion of land which was used as pathway and against this encroachment Kulendra naturally protested and requested the appellant to erect the fence in a straight line. But the appellant became furious and after entering into an altercation with Kulendra, dealt a blow with a dao on his neck. Pampi Rani Das has also testified that on seeing the assault, she requested the assailants not to do so, but to no avail. But the appellant became furious and after entering into an altercation with Kulendra, dealt a blow with a dao on his neck. Pampi Rani Das has also testified that on seeing the assault, she requested the assailants not to do so, but to no avail. She, therefore, somehow managed to bring Kulendra to the courtyard of their house where he died within five minutes. According to her evidence, one of the neighbour informed the police and she lodged the ejahar at the place of occurrence when the police came. Pampi Rani Das has stood firm in her cross-examination that she saw the appellant causing fatal injury on the neck of Kulendra with a dao. The evidence of Pami Rani Das has been fully corroborated by another eye witness Nomita Rani Das (PW-2) who is her neighbour. She too has testified that on hearing the commotion she came out and saw the appellant causing an injury on the neck of Kulendra with a dao. Since the actual assault was made by appellant after he started a hot altercation with Kulendra, the evidence of Nomita Rani Das appears to be true when she says that she came out of the house after hearing commotion and then actually saw the appellant causing the fatal injury. 8. Kanti Mohan Das (PW-3) is husband of Nomita Rani Das. Therefore, he is also a neighbour of Pampi Rani Das. Truthfully, he does not claim to be an eye witness. He, however, corroborates the evidence of Nomita Rani Das that on hearing the commotion she went out of the house and saw the appellant causing injury on the neck of Kulendra with a dao. Kanti Mohan Das for himself says that on hearing the commotion, he rushed to the courtyard where he found Kulendra lying on the ground with cut injuries on his neck. And on his asking, Kulendra disclosed that appellant had assaulted him with a dao. Similar is the evidence of Sirish Das (PW-4). He too is neighbour of Kulendra. According to him, on the date of incident, at about 10 a.m., while he was having meal in his house, he heard cries from the house of Kulendra. He then went to Kulendra and found him sitting with cut injuries on the neck. And on being asked, Kulendra told him that appellant had caused the fatal injury with a dao. According to him, on the date of incident, at about 10 a.m., while he was having meal in his house, he heard cries from the house of Kulendra. He then went to Kulendra and found him sitting with cut injuries on the neck. And on being asked, Kulendra told him that appellant had caused the fatal injury with a dao. Both these witnesses have stood firm that Kulendra had told them on their asking about appellant causing him neck injury with a dao. Also because the incident took place in the neighbourhood of these witnesses, it was natural on their part to rush to Kulendra and ask about the incident. 9. The evidence of eye witnesses, namely, Pampi Rani Das and Nomita Rani Das and also of witnesses Kanti Mohan Das and Sirish Das is further corroborated by the post mortem examination report of Kulendra. The post mortem examination report confirmed that Kulendra died due to cut neck injury which was ante mortem in nature and caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon. 10. On scanning the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the Trial Court that appellant alone committed the murder of Kulendra by mercilessly causing injury on his neck with a dao. At the time of incident, Kulendra was helpless and unarmed. His only fault was that he requested the appellant not to erect bamboo fence by making encroachment on the village pathway. Apparently, while causing the fatal injury with a dao, the appellant had both intention and knowledge that with such injury Kulendra would die. 11. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.