Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 953 (GAU)

Doma Hanch S/o Late Mango Hanch v. State of Assam

2016-10-27

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2016
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. Heard Ms. P. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. M. Phukan, learned Addl. P.P., Assam. 2. The appellant Doma Hanch has been convicted under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of one Habil Munda and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine and default stipulation. 3. Karua Munda (PW2) lodged Ejahar dated 29.01.2011 before the Merapani Police Station, which was registered as Merapani P.S. Case No. 13/2011 under Section 302 IPC. According to the said Ejahar at about 2.00 P.M. of 29.01.2011, the appellant had picked up a quarrel with the informant’s father Habil Munda and hacked his father on the head and face with a Naga Dao to death in the courtyard of the house of the appellant. The Gaonbura of the village and the local people thereafter detained the appellant. The investigation of the case was carried out by Suryya Rajkhowa (PW8) in the capacity of being the Second Officer of Merapani Police Station. The said investigation resulted in filing of chargesheet against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The case was committed to trial with formal charge being framed against the appellant. 4. As many as 8(eight) witnesses were examined from the prosecution side including the Informant, the Medial Officer and the Investigating Officer. Apparently, there were no eye-witnesses to the incident. Karua Munda (PW2), who is the informant in the case as well as one Debeswar Manki (PW5), who is related to both the appellant and the deceased, were declared hostile. 5. From the testimony of Ram Charan Manki (PW1), one day about five months back at around 12.00 P.M. while he was in his house, his co3 villager Smt. Mayo Hanch (PW7), the daughter-in-law of the appellant, came to his house and informed that the appellant had cut Habil Munda in the courtyard of his house and that Habil Munda was lying in the courtyard itself. On getting the said information, PW1 immediately went to the house of the appellant and found Habil Munda lying in the courtyard. He had also seen injury in Habil Munda’s head. He immediately informed the Merapani Police Station over phone, whereupon police came to the place of occurrence and arrested the appellant. On getting the said information, PW1 immediately went to the house of the appellant and found Habil Munda lying in the courtyard. He had also seen injury in Habil Munda’s head. He immediately informed the Merapani Police Station over phone, whereupon police came to the place of occurrence and arrested the appellant. PW1 also stated that upon his arrival at the place of occurrence, he found the appellant standing near the deceased with a dao in his hand. He also stated that police seized the dao from the hand of the appellant in his presence and also held inquest on the dead body. He proved the Inquest Report (Ext.-1) and his signature as well as the Seizure List (Ext.-2). On cross, PW2 however deposed that he did not state before the police about the appellant standing near the place of occurrence with a dao in his hand. 6. Dr. Rajib Phukan (PW3) deposed as the Medical & Health Officer. He had conducted autopsy over the dead body of Habil Munda. According to him, Habil Munda suffered incised wounds on the mandibular region, on the right back side of the neck as well as on the right side of the head (temporal region). He also found that brain matter have come out through the wound site. He also deposed that the incised wounds nos. 1 and 3 were grievous in nature and sufficient for causing death of a person in the ordinary course. The cause of death, according to him, was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the injuries sustained. 7. Lala Munda (PW6), who is the son of the deceased Habil Munda, deposed to the extent that police found the dead body in the house of the appellant. He also deposed that he put his signature on the Inquest Report (Ext.-1). 8. Suryya Rajkhowa (PW8) being the Investigating Officer tendered his testimony to the effect that upon receipt of the Ejahar he was entrusted with the investigation and at about 3.00 P.M. of 29.01.2011 he had visited the place of occurrence and found the dead body of Habil Munda lying in the courtyard of the house of the appellant. He also deposed that the Gaonbura and local people had detained the appellant. Thereafter, he took the appellant into custody and held inquest on the dead body in presence of witnesses. He also deposed that the Gaonbura and local people had detained the appellant. Thereafter, he took the appellant into custody and held inquest on the dead body in presence of witnesses. According to the said PW8, the appellant brought out the Naga Dao from inside his house and told that he had inflicted cut by means of the dao. The said dao was seized in the presence of witnesses. The dead body was brought to the Police Station and on the following morning was sent to Kushal Konwar Civil Hospital, Golaghat for post-mortem examination. The appellant was arrested on 30.01.2011 and was forwarded to the Court. PW8 also deposed that he examined witnesses, collected the Post-Mortem Report (Ext.-4) and upon completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. Also, he recorded the statement of the appellant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in presence of the public. 9. The appellant who was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stuck to a version of the prosecution witnesses tendering false evidence. To pointed questions raised on Habil Munda being found lying in the courtyard of his house, the appellant answered that he had nothing to say in that regard. 10. The fact that the dead body of Habil Munda was found lying in the courtyard of the house of the appellant has remained unrebutted. The testimony of PW1, PW4 (Samuel Deep), PW6 and PW8 lends credibility to the said fact. The Inquest Report (Ext.-1), which had been duly proved and exhibited, also discloses that the dead body of Habil Munda was found lying supine in north-south direction in the courtyard of the house of the appellant. The said evidence have stood undisturbed and even during examination of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., no explanation has been tendered to discredit such evidence as untrustworthy. 11. The injuries caused to Habil Munda stands corroborated by medical evidence and the Seizure List (Ext.-2) gives description of the weapon of offence, which is an 11 inch long Naga Dao fitted to a 12 inch long bamboo with a ferule. 12. A perusal of the entire evidence on record manifestly goes to show that the death of Habil Munda is homicidal in nature. According to medical opinion, the incised wounds nos. 1 and 3 were grievous and sufficient to cause death of a person in the ordinary course. 12. A perusal of the entire evidence on record manifestly goes to show that the death of Habil Munda is homicidal in nature. According to medical opinion, the incised wounds nos. 1 and 3 were grievous and sufficient to cause death of a person in the ordinary course. Although there are no direct eye-witnesses to the incident, the testimony of PW1, PW4, PW6 and PW8 clearly goes to show that the dead body of Habil Munda was found lying in the courtyard of the house of the appellant. In this respect it may be noticed that where an offence like murder is committed in a house, the nature and amount of evidence to be led by the prosecution to establish the charge of murder cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. A corresponding burden on the inmate of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed always remain. The inmate of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish the case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on the accused to offer any explanation. As seen above, the appellant tendered no explanation whatsoever as to the circumstances of Habil Munda being found lying dead in the courtyard of his house. No other evidence had also been brought to fore to dislodge the credibility of the depositions of the PW1, PW4, PW6 and PW8, not to speak of the veracity of the Inquest Report. 13. The circumstances surrounding the case unerringly lead to the conclusion that the appellant is the perpetrator of the crime. What can be gathered from the circumstances and evidence on record is that the prosecution has been able to establish its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 14. For all the discussions and findings above, we affirm the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant Doma Hanch by the learned Court below in its judgment and order dated 15.03.2013 in Sessions Case No. 68/2011. Resultantly, this appeal fails and stands dismissed.