Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 936 (GAU)

Ranjit Gogoi v. State of Assam

2016-10-24

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. The sole appellant Ranjit Gogoi has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. 2. The victim of the incident was Bhawar Lal Shethia, aged about 26 years. 3. According to the prosecution case, Bhawar Lal Shethia was working as Supervisor in a Biscuit Factory named “Amrit Bakers”. In that Factory, the appellant also worked as Security Guard. On 1.2.2001, at about 8 p.m., in the premises of Biscuit Factory, the appellant caused multiple injuries to Bhawar Lal Shethia with a Khukuri (dagger) and thereafter appeared at North Guwahati Police Out-post, Gauripur with the Khukuri. Bhawar Lal Shethia was taken to Down Town Hospital where he died at about 10.50 p.m. Jatanlal Menot (PW-4) made the ejahar exhibit 1 against the appellant at the North Guwahati Police Out-Post. On receiving the ejahar, In-charge of the Police Out-post forwarded the same to the Officer In-charge of Kamalpur Police Station. Accordingly an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant. 4. Dr. K.C. Basumatary (PW-6) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Bhawar Lal Shethia. He found as many as thirteen incised wounds on the head and hands of Bhawar Lal Shethia. He also found both bones of left forearm were fractured. The doctor in the post mortem examination report exhibit 3 opined that Bhawar Lal Shethia died due to head injuries which were homicidal in nature and caused by a heavy sharp cutting weapon. 5. During trial the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. The appellant while being examined as an accused stated that around 7.30 p.m. on the day of occurrence, he heard an alarm towards the gate of the Factory and therefore he went there and found that five persons were causing injuries to Bhawar Lal Shethia. The appellant also stated that on his intervention, when the assailants ran away, he brought the dagger used in the commission of offence to the Police Station to give information, but there he was roughed up and brought to Kamalpur Police Station. 6. Although the incident took place within the premises of Biscuit Factory, the prosecution did not produce any eye witness in support of its case. 6. Although the incident took place within the premises of Biscuit Factory, the prosecution did not produce any eye witness in support of its case. The trial court, however, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid on the following circumstances: i. The presence of appellant and Bhawar Lal Shethia in the premises of Biscuit Factory at the relevant time of fateful night was not in dispute; ii. Strained relations between the appellant and Bhawar Lal Shethia on the ground of teasing of appellant’s sister in law by the latter; iii. Quarrel between the appellant and Bhawar Lal Shethia at the relevant time; iv. Bhawar Lal Shethia was found lying with severe injuries at the place of occurrence immediately after the incident; v. Multiple cut injuries reported by the doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body; vi. No explanation by the appellant as to how Bhawar Lal Shethia sustained such type of multiple injuries; vii. Surrendering of appellant at the North Guwahati Police Out-Post with a Khukuri. 7. We shall now examine whether the above referred circumstances inspire confidence to warrant the conviction of appellant for committing the murder of Bhawar Lal Shethia. The prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses, including the Investigating Officer to prove its case whereas the appellant examined none. 8. Uday Aditeya Das (PW-1) merely wrote the ejahar on the request of Jatanlal Menot (PW-4). This witness admits that he has no personal knowledge about the incident. 9. Bhaben Nath (PW-2) has deposed that the appellant was known to him as his residence is situated near Amrit Bakery. According to him, on the date of occurrence, at around 8 p.m., while he was in his house, he heard hue and cry from the premises of Biscuit Factory and when he reached the place of occurrence, he heard that there was a quarrel between the appellant and Bhawar Lal Shethia whereafter he went to North Guwahati Police Out-Post and saw the appellant there. According to him, he had heard that appellant handed over one Khukuri to Police which was seized vide exhibit 2. Bhaben Nath admits his signature in the seizure memo and the seizure of khukuri. He however does not say that appellant had handed over the khukuri to police in his presence. According to him, he had heard that appellant handed over one Khukuri to Police which was seized vide exhibit 2. Bhaben Nath admits his signature in the seizure memo and the seizure of khukuri. He however does not say that appellant had handed over the khukuri to police in his presence. From the evidence of Bhaben Nath, it cannot be held that appellant after committing the crime with a khukuri surrendered before the Police. Since this witness also does not say that he saw the appellant quarrelling with Bhawar Lal Shethia, it cannot be held that both had quarrelled before the incident. 10. Subhash Kumar Singh (PW-3) says that both the appellant and Bhawar Lal Shethia were known to him and on the night of incident, he too had heard commotion outside his residence whereafter he came out and saw a large number of people coming towards the North Guwahati Police Out-Post. According to Subhash Kumar Singh, he also followed them and saw the accused there. This witness further says that he heard from the people gathered that appellant had killed Bhawar Lal Shethia. Subhash Kumar Singh in his cross examination, however, admitted that he did not see the incident and had no personal knowledge about the incident. He also admitted that he only heard about the appellant surrendering voluntarily before the police. The evidence of Subhash Kumar Singh, therefore, in our considered opinion, does not help the prosecution in proving its case against the appellant in any manner. 11. Jatanlal Menot (PW-4) had lodged the ejahar against the appellant. Although in the ejahar, he had named the appellant as an assailant of Bhawar Lal Shethia, he admitted in his evidence that he had no knowledge as to how Bhawar Lal Shethia sustained injuries as he was not present at the spot when the incident took place. With this admission of Jatanlal Menot his evidence also does not help the prosecution case against the appellant. 12. Lakhan Roy (PW-5) has testified that appellant worked with him as Security Guard in the Biscuit Factory. On 1.2.2001, he was on duty from 7 a.m. in the front gate and after his duty was over, the appellant took charge of Security Guard. 12. Lakhan Roy (PW-5) has testified that appellant worked with him as Security Guard in the Biscuit Factory. On 1.2.2001, he was on duty from 7 a.m. in the front gate and after his duty was over, the appellant took charge of Security Guard. According to the evidence of Lakhan Roy, while he was leaving his place of work, suddenly, he had heard a cry “Aai Oye” and he immediately returned and found Bhawar Lal Shethia lying in an injured condition. On seeing the incident, he immediately rushed to the North Guwahati Police Out-Post where he found appellant already in police custody and the police seized one khukuri vide exhibit 2. In the cross examination, Lakhan Roy has admitted that he has no knowledge whether the seized khukuri was handed over to Police by the appellant or the Police collected it from the place of occurrence. Lakhan Roy has also testified that about one month prior to the incident, there was an argument between the appellant and Bhawar Lal Shethia over teasing of the appellant’s sister in law by Bhawar Lal Shethia. From the evidence of Lakhan Roy, it is nowhere established that appellant had any inimical relation with Bhawar Lal Shethia or had ever quarrelled with him or even nursed a grudge to the extent of killing him. He also does not say that he himself had heard the argument between them. Moreover, a mere argument about one month prior to the date of incident cannot necessarily be held as a motive by the appellant for killing Bhawar Lal Shethia specially when both of them must have met almost every day as they worked in the same Factory. 13. As mentioned above, Dr. K.C. Basumatary (PW-6) had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Bhawar Lal Shethia and found multiple incised wounds which were ante mortem in nature and caused by heavy sharp edged weapon. Dr. K.C. Basumatary has opined that the cause of death of Bhawar Lal Shethia was homicidal in nature. 14. Ramesh Kumar (PW-7) was employed as Fitter in the Biscuit Factory. He has testified that he was in his house when he heard the commotion. He then went to the Factory premises and found Bhawar Lal Shethia lying in an injured condition. Later, he heard that Security Guard (appellant) had surrendered with a khukuri at the Police Station. 14. Ramesh Kumar (PW-7) was employed as Fitter in the Biscuit Factory. He has testified that he was in his house when he heard the commotion. He then went to the Factory premises and found Bhawar Lal Shethia lying in an injured condition. Later, he heard that Security Guard (appellant) had surrendered with a khukuri at the Police Station. But, this witness has also admitted in his cross examination that he did not actually see the incident. The evidence of Ramesh Kumar therefore does not help the prosecution case against the appellant. 15. Bipul Das (PW-8) has not deposed anything against the appellant. He has even denied knowing the appellant. Nilima Hazarika (PW-9) is wife of the appellant. She did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. She was also not an eye witness. Md. Iyazul Rahman (PW-10) is an Investigating Officer. He merely recorded the statement of witnesses. He did not seize any blood stained cloth from the appellant. 16. Although the Investigating Officer Iyazul Rahman (PW-10) and Ramesh Kumar (PW-7) have testified that appellant after surrendering at the Police Station made a confession regarding killing of Bhawar Lal Shethia, the trial court has rightly not accepted such confession in view of bar under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. 17. From the scanning of the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, it is difficult to believe that appellant had any enmity or motive to commit the murder of Bhawar Lal Shethia. There is no evidence to show that appellant had also quarrelled with Bhawar Lal Shethia immediately before to the incident. Lakhan Roy merely states about an argument between the appellant and Bhawar Lal Shethia one month prior to the date of incident over teasing of appellant’s sister in law by Bhawar Lal Shethia. Lakhan Roy does not say that he himself had heard the argument. He also does not say that argument was of such a serious nature which could have motivated the appellant to kill Bhawar Lal Shethia. Also, surprisingly, although the incident took place in the premises of Factory, where large number of persons are employed, the prosecution could not examine even one person as an eye witness to the incident. He also does not say that argument was of such a serious nature which could have motivated the appellant to kill Bhawar Lal Shethia. Also, surprisingly, although the incident took place in the premises of Factory, where large number of persons are employed, the prosecution could not examine even one person as an eye witness to the incident. The appellant as a Security Guard has explained that he saw five persons causing injuries to Bhawar Lal Shethia and on his intervention, when they ran away, he brought the dagger used in the commission of offence to the Police Station, where he was booked. It is also to be noted that had the appellant caused as many as thirteen incised injuries with a dagger, his clothes would have definitely been smeared with blood. As seen above, the appellant within minutes after the incident had reached the Police Station and there is nothing on record to suggest that police found any blood stain on his clothes or person. 18. For these reasons, we are unable to uphold the impugned conviction and sentence of the appellant. The circumstances brought on record do not form a complete chain against the appellant to establish that he alone was the perpetrator of the crime. We, accordingly, set aside his conviction and sentence. He is reportedly in Jail. He be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. The appeal is allowed.