Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 899 (GAU)

Ananda Ram Konwar v. State of Assam

2016-09-29

AJIT SINGH, N.CHAUDHURY

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. The sole appellant Ananda Ram Konwar has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation. 2. The victim of incident was Prahlad Magar, aged about 25 years. 3. The facts in short are these. Appellant is the second husband of Padumi Konwar (PW-2). From the first husband of Padumi Konwar, Prahlad Magar and other children were born and all of them lived together with the appellant. The appellant also had one son Pranjal Konwar (PW-7) from Padumi Konwar. Prahlad Magar unfortunately became an alcoholic and always created problems in the house. He even beat and caused injuries to the family members. So much so that Padumi Konwar has become permanently paralyzed because of the injury caused by him. She thus remains confined to bed. On 30.7.2012, around 8.30 p.m., Prahlad Magar returned home in a drunken condition and created a scene. He chased Pranjal Konwar to beat him, but the latter ran away. Prahlad Magar then assaulted the appellant with a knife and caused a grievous cut injury on his head. Not satisfied, Prahlad Magar immediately thereafter picked up a dao to assault the appellant but the appellant managed to kick him on his leg. Because of the kick, Prahlad Magar lost his balance and fell down on the ground. The appellant, apprehending threat to his life, snatched the dao from the hand of Prahlad Magar and gave a blow with it on his neck. Prahlad Magar died instantaneously on the spot. Ejahar of the incident was made by Padumi Konwar. 4. Mamoni Bordoloi (PW-6) is Village Headwoman. According to her, on receiving the information about the incident, she went to the house of appellant and on her asking, the appellant disclosed that he had killed Prahlad Magar with a dao. 5. As mentioned above, Padumi Konwar and Pranjal Konwar are wife and son of appellant. Padumi Konwar is also mother of Prahlad Magar. Both Padumi Konwar and Pranjal Konwar have deposed that appellant had killed Prahlad Magar with a dao in the house. Padumi Konwar has gone to the extent of saying that Prahlad Magar was so wicked that it was good that appellant killed him. Padumi Konwar is also mother of Prahlad Magar. Both Padumi Konwar and Pranjal Konwar have deposed that appellant had killed Prahlad Magar with a dao in the house. Padumi Konwar has gone to the extent of saying that Prahlad Magar was so wicked that it was good that appellant killed him. According to the evidence of Pranjal Konwar, the appellant was first attacked by Prahlad Magar with a knife and thereafter with a dao and only then he snatched the dao from the hand of Prahlad Magar and dealt one blow with that very dao on his neck. The appellant, while being examined as an accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has candidly admitted what Padumi Konwar and Pranjal Konwar testified against him was true. The appellant also explained that he killed Prahlad Magar in self defence. The post mortem examination report prepared by Dr. Narendra Bhagawati (PW-5) confirmed that Prahlad Magar died due to cut injury on his neck. We, therefore, confirm the finding of the trial court that Prahlad Magar died due to cut injury on his neck caused by the appellant with a dao. 6. But, apparently, the appellant did so in exercise of right of self-defense of person. We say so because even according to the prosecution, Prahlad Magar was a drunkard and wicked person. Because of the injury caused by him, his mother Padumi Konwar is suffering from paralysis and immediately prior to the incident, he first tried to cause injury to his younger brother Pranjal Konwar, but when he failed, he attacked the appellant with a knife and caused a grievous injury on his head. Prahlad Magar then attempted to cause more injuries with a dao to the appellant, but the appellant managed to kick him and snatched the dao. The appellant then, apprehending imminent threat to his life, dealt a blow with that very dao on the neck of Prahlad Magar due to which he died. Investigating Officer, Sankar Das (PW-8) in his evidence has admitted that appellant had grievous injury on his head and he had provided medical treatment to him before producing in the court. Inspection memo exhibit B proved by Sankar Das confirms that appellant had cut injury on the left side of his head. The size of cut injury was 1½” x ½” x ¾” deep. Inspection memo exhibit B proved by Sankar Das confirms that appellant had cut injury on the left side of his head. The size of cut injury was 1½” x ½” x ¾” deep. In forwarding letter exhibit C also it is clearly mentioned that cut injury on the head of appellant was caused by deceased Prahlad Magar before his death. It is to be noted that appellant was 60 years old on the date of incident. 7. This being the position, the conviction of appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is wholly unjustified. We accordingly set aside his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10000/-. The appellant is reportedly in jail since more than five years. He is directed to be released forthwith. The appeal is allowed.