Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 903 (GAU)

Bipul Chetia v. State of Assam

2016-09-30

AJIT SINGH, N.CHAUDHURY

body2016
JUDGMENT & ORDER : N. Chaudhury, J. Appellant Bipul Chetia has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No.228(S-S)/2010 by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar, by judgment and order dated 26.03.2013 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more. 2. The prosecution story is that one Smti. Phula Bhuyan lodged an ejahar with Officer-in-charge, Sivasagar Police Station on 15.08.2008 alleging that at around 8.00 p.m. on 15.08.2008 accused Bipul Chetia grievously injured her husband Jonglu Bhuyan by stabbing with a knifelike weapon at the neck near shoulder and fled away. The injured was taken to East Point Hospital by pushcart with the help of neighbours where doctor declared him dead. Sivasagar Police Station Case No.516/2008 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was accordingly registered and investigation launched. 3. Police after completion of the investigation submitted chargesheet against the accused person enclosing the post mortem report along with other documents like inquest report, death certificate, sketch map etc. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivasagar, committed the case to the Court of Sessions whereupon aforesaid Sessions Case No.228(S-S)/2010 was registered and charge framed against the accused person under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In course of trial prosecution examined eleven witnesses. PW 1, Purabi Bargohain, only deposed to the effect that at around the time of occurrence she had seen accused Bipul Chetia running across the road from the place of occurrence. She noticed commotion at Jonglu’s house just opposite to her house and going there she found Jonglu was lying in the doorway of his house. The accused was running away from the place of occurrence and towards her house. She heard people shouting that the accused killed Jonglu. Thus, she is not an eye-witness. PW 2, Padum Das, similarly saw the accused running from the opposite direction while this witness was returning from grocery shop. Later on, he saw deceased Jonglu lying in the courtyard of Moina Ali’s rented house with injuries on his person. He gathered from the people that accused had killed Jonglu. 5. PW 3, Dr. Nirmal Chandra Chutia, found one incised looking wound on left side of the neck measuring approximately 4 cm. in length. Later on, he saw deceased Jonglu lying in the courtyard of Moina Ali’s rented house with injuries on his person. He gathered from the people that accused had killed Jonglu. 5. PW 3, Dr. Nirmal Chandra Chutia, found one incised looking wound on left side of the neck measuring approximately 4 cm. in length. There was one stab wound at left side of the neck deep to the left lung injuring it. Pulmonary vessels on left lung and some air tubes were damaged. He also noted left side haemothorax and the wounds were antemortem in nature. In his opinion death was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the stab injury. He proved Exhibit-1 the post mortem report. 6. PW 4, Phula Bhuyan, is the informant. According to her, at the time of occurrence her husband had been sitting in the rented house of Kan Karmakar. She was also standing there. At that time accused Bipul Chetia came and pushed her. Then her husband asked as to why he had done so when accused Bipul started quarrelling with her husband. Accused pulled his shirt and brought him outside. She went ahead to save her husband but the accused felled her kicking. After that the accused took out a dagger which he had kept concealed in his backside and stabbed her husband in the left side of neck. Kan came to save her husband but he also sustained injuries. Thus, PW 4 is an eyewitness to the occurrence. 7. PW 5, Smti. Ratna Rani Kalita, stated that at the time of occurrence Bipul Chetia was coming home. Jonglu was sitting at the house of Kan. Phula Bhuyan went to call her husband Jonglu and at that time hand of Phula touched the accused which led to a fight. She then went to call their landlord Moina Ali. When she came back she saw Jonglu was lying injured in the verandah and was writhing. She shouted ‘blood, blood’ and accused Bipul Chetia fled from there. 8. PW 6, Porag Borgohain, deposed that when he was returning home after finishing his duty he saw in the moonlight that the accused was running fast with a knife in his hand. He saw the accused in the byelane. At that time he heard commotion at Jonglu Bhuyan’s house. Having gone there he found Jonglu was lying on the ground and he had died. He saw the accused in the byelane. At that time he heard commotion at Jonglu Bhuyan’s house. Having gone there he found Jonglu was lying on the ground and he had died. He heard that Bipul Chetia had killed Jonglu. 9. PW 7, Kan Karmakar, is a material witness in this case. He stated that at the time of occurrence deceased Jonglu and his wife were quarrelling. Accused Bipul who resides in the adjacent room came and asked them not to quarrel with each other. Then Jonglu punched Bipul and Bipul returned punch. Jonglu’s wife brought a lathi to assault Bipul. She assaulted Bipul once with lathi. At that time it was dark. But he could not say who had assaulted whom but Jonglu died in his presence. 10. PW 8, Pankaj Kalita, is a labourer. He did not see the incident but he became an inquest witness. PW 9, Dr. Dilip Gogoi, is the doctor who had certified Jonglu Bhuyan to be dead once the injured was brought to hospital. He was not cross-examined. 11. PW 10, Binod Basfor, is a hospital employee. He is also son-in-law of the deceased. He stated that after Jonglu was brought to hospital he was declared dead. This witness was told by others that accused Bipul Chetia had killed his father-in-law. He was also a witness to the inquest. 12. PW 11, Bidya Sagar Singh, is the Investigating Officer. He gave the details of investigation done and proved various documents like charge-sheet, post mortem report, death certificate, sketch map etc. On the basis of these evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses the learned Sessions Judge examined the accused person under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when he merely denied the correctness but did not give any explanation. Having considered these materials on record the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 26.03.2013 convicted the accused person under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him, as aforesaid. 13. We have heard Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.P. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State. We have also perused the evidence on record. 14. The learned Sessions Judge has considered the evidence in detail and found ample reasons to believe the testimony of PW 4, Smti. Phula Bhuyan, who is an eye-witness to the occurrence. N.J. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.P. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State. We have also perused the evidence on record. 14. The learned Sessions Judge has considered the evidence in detail and found ample reasons to believe the testimony of PW 4, Smti. Phula Bhuyan, who is an eye-witness to the occurrence. The accused stabbed her husband in her presence at the neck. PW 3, Dr. Nirmal Chandra Chetia, who had conducted post mortem examination found incised injury on the left side of the neck of the deceased. The injury was severe and it even lacerated the lung. The evidence given by PW 4, eye witness, therefore, stood duly corroborated by the medical evidence adduced by PW 3. The learned Sessions Judge having noted so, held the accused guilty of committing offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. In the case in hand it is to be further noted that the accused person, the PW 7, the deceased and for that the PW 4 lived in various rooms of a same house belonging to one Moina Ali. PW 7 was the next door neighbour of the deceased and it is this PW 7 who stated that accused Bipul Chetia was the aggressor. According to him, the deceased and his wife PW 4 were quarrelling in between themselves. At that time Bipul Chetia came and joined them. There was fight between the deceased and the accused because the accused had assaulted the wife of the deceased. So, PW 7 was present when the incident had taken place. His testimony reveals that only three persons were present there at that time excluding himself. They were the deceased, the accused and the wife of the deceased. The wife of the deceased can be excluded straightway as neither anybody has made such allegation nor was she armed with sharp weapon. There is no material on record to hold that anybody else could or did cause the incised injury on deceased. Logically, in the absence of any other material, focus converges on the accused. This coupled with the unrebutted testimony of eye-witness PW 4, wipes out all scopes of reasonable doubt in favour of the accused. The testimony of PW 5 (Ratna Kalita) becomes relevant here. Logically, in the absence of any other material, focus converges on the accused. This coupled with the unrebutted testimony of eye-witness PW 4, wipes out all scopes of reasonable doubt in favour of the accused. The testimony of PW 5 (Ratna Kalita) becomes relevant here. Corroborating the testimony of PW 4 and PW 7, she stated in the witness box that quarrel was between the accused on one side and the deceased and his wife on the other side. She came out leaving them in conflicts and shouted for help so that the quarrel did not escalate. But immediately thereafter when she came back, the occurrence had already taken place. The circumstances, described by her confirms and corroborates the testimony of solitary eye-witness, namely, PW 4. According to PW 4, the accused was carrying the weapon in his body. Be that as it may, even if the accused had brought it from his house in course of quarrel and made use of the same in inflicting injury on the person of the deceased, it is clear that there was premeditation for causing murder or grievous hurt to the deceased. He did not act on any sudden provocation. Rather, he provoked the deceased by assaulting his wife. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, has not committed any error in holding the accused person guilty of committing offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. We do not find any reason to differ with the view held by the learned Sessions Judge. 16. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the accused stand upheld. Send down the records.