Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 954 (GAU)

Bharat Tasa v. State of Assam

2016-10-27

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. The sole appellant Bharat Tasa has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation for committing the murder of his wife Satya. He has also been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one year simple imprisonment for causing simple injury to his minor son Rubul. 2. According to the prosecution case, the appellant is husband of Satya. They have a daughter Babli (PW-9) and son Rubul. All of them lived together in a house situated at Aideopukhuri Tea Estate. Even his mother, Dhonmoni (PW-5) lived with him. Rajib Tasa (PW-1) is brother of appellant. He also along with his wife Bijita (PW-10) lived in the house of appellant, but in a separate portion. On the night of 1.1.2011, both Rajib and appellant returned home. After some time, the appellant for some reason became angry. On seeing the anger of appellant, Rajib left the house and went to the house of his neighbour. Later, during midnight when Rajib came back, he found the door of house closed from inside. The appellant was inside and yet he did not open the door. After a while, their mother Dhonmoni somehow managed to open the door and came out. Dhonmoni then informed him that appellant had killed Satya and injured Rubul inside the room. Rajib, out of fear, did not enter the room. He instead took Dhonmoni and Babli to his sister’s house who lived nearby. On the following morning around 6 a.m., Rajib returned to appellant’s house and found injured dead body of Satya lying inside. He also found Rubul lying injured whereas the appellant had fled. In the meantime, many villagers had also gathered at the appellant’s house. Rubul was sent to hospital for treatment. Rajib made the ejahar, Exhibit-1 against the appellant at Police Station Sonari, Sivasagar. 3. Officer-in-Charge of Police Station Sonari, Durlab Das (PW-11) on receiving the ejahar, immediately rushed to the house of appellant. There he also found the dead body of Satya lying inside. He then prepared the inquest report, Exhibit-2 of the dead body and thereafter, recorded the statement of witnesses. 3. Officer-in-Charge of Police Station Sonari, Durlab Das (PW-11) on receiving the ejahar, immediately rushed to the house of appellant. There he also found the dead body of Satya lying inside. He then prepared the inquest report, Exhibit-2 of the dead body and thereafter, recorded the statement of witnesses. The appellant was caught by the villagers around 11 a.m. from the pond of Rajen Gogoi where he was hiding, whereafter, his custody was handed over to the police. 4. Dr. Biswajeet Dutta (PW-4) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body. He found a cut injury measuring about 2” x 2” on left side of face exposing the underlying soft tissue and a depressed fracture of occipital bone. He also found oozing of blood from mouth and nostrils of Satya. According to Dr. Biswajeet Dutta, Satya died due to injuries caused to her which were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause her death. His post mortem examination report in this regard is Exhibit-3. 5. After filing of the charge sheet, the appellant was prosecuted for offences under Sections 302 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. At the stage of framing of charges he pleaded not guilty, but at the stage of conclusion of trial, while being examined as an accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he admitted killing Satya. He, however, denied causing injury to Rubul. 6. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, found the appellant guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Satya and also under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for causing hurt to Rubul. It is in this background, the aggrieved appellant has filed the present appeal. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, we are of the considered view that the appeal has no merit and it deserves to be dismissed. As mentioned above, Dhonmoni and Babli are mother and daughter of appellant. Both of them were naturally inside the house at the time of incident which was mid-night. They, therefore, had the misfortune of witnessing appellant killing Satya in front of them and beating Rubul. Both these witnesses have testified that the appellant trampled and beat Satya to death by causing injuries to her. Both of them were naturally inside the house at the time of incident which was mid-night. They, therefore, had the misfortune of witnessing appellant killing Satya in front of them and beating Rubul. Both these witnesses have testified that the appellant trampled and beat Satya to death by causing injuries to her. Babli has also testified that appellant had caused injuries to Rubul. Not only this, according to Babli even she too was beaten up by the appellant. In the brief cross-examination, nothing was suggested to Dhonmoni and Babli why they would falsely implicate the appellant. The only suggestion put to these witnesses was whether the appellant suffered from madness. Even otherwise, Dhonmoni being the mother of appellant and Babli being the daughter of appellant, had absolutely no reason to falsely implicate him. On the contrary, they had been bold enough to depose only the truth in the Court at the cost of losing their son and father. The dead body of Satya was admittedly found inside the house and the appellant himself while being examined as an accused, has admitted that he had killed her. The admission of appellant stands fully corroborated by the evidence of Dhonmoni and Babli and, therefore, it can be accepted against him. Rajib in his evidence has also fully corroborated the evidence of Dhonmoni and Babli. For these reasons, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the finding of the Trial Court that appellant alone had committed the murder of Satya in his house. Rubul, who was inside the house at that point of time, was also found injured. Babli saw the appellant assaulting him. The Trial Court has, therefore, rightly convicted the appellant for causing minor injury to Rubul. 8. We are also unable to accept the plea of appellant that by virtue of unsoundness of mind, the act done by him shall come within the general exception under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. In the cross-examination, Rajib Tasa stated that the appellant occasionally suffered from epilepsy and during that period he would not recognize anybody. Haren Tanti (PW-3) is Secretary of Village Defence Party. He in his cross-examination has admitted that appellant is a crack-brained person and sometimes all of a sudden he got seized with madness and would become normal within 2/3 hours. Haren Tanti (PW-3) is Secretary of Village Defence Party. He in his cross-examination has admitted that appellant is a crack-brained person and sometimes all of a sudden he got seized with madness and would become normal within 2/3 hours. Dhonmoni has also admitted in her cross-examination that sometimes appellant would become abnormal but otherwise he does everything normally. Babli has stated in her cross-examination that appellant was almost mad but admitted that he was never treated before the incident. Except for these bald admissions of the witnesses in their cross-examination, no reliable or concrete evidence has been produced on behalf of the appellant to show that he actually suffered from insanity or unsoundness of mind. 9. The act of killing of wife and beating son in the house during night cannot be said to be a usual behavior, but it is now well settled by the Supreme Court that one who seeks exoneration from liability of an act under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, must prove legal insanity and not medical insanity. In Surendra Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2011) 11 SCC 495 , the Supreme Court has held that every person who is suffering from mental disease is not ipso facto exempted from criminal liability. The Supreme Court has also held that the mere fact that the accused is conceited, odd, irascible and his brain is not quite alright, or that the physical and mental ailments from which he suffered had rendered his intellect weak and affected his emotions or indulges in certain unusual acts, or had fits of insanity at short intervals or that he was subject to epileptic fits and there was abnormal behaviour or the behaviour is queer, are not sufficient to attract the application of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. In the case at hand, as mentioned above, except bald admissions of witnesses that appellant is crack-brained person or suffered from epilepsy at times, there is absolutely no reliable and cogent evidence to establish that at the time of commission of offence, he did not know the nature of his act or that it was either wrong or contrary to law. His plea apparently does not come within the exception contemplated under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. It is stated at the Bar that appellant is presently suffering from heart ailment and perhaps requires surgery. His plea apparently does not come within the exception contemplated under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. It is stated at the Bar that appellant is presently suffering from heart ailment and perhaps requires surgery. We, accordingly, direct the Superintendent of Jail to ensure that appellant is provided best possible treatment of heart and, if needed heart surgery, as advised by the doctor. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Superintendent of Jail for information and compliance. 11. With the above direction, the appeal is dismissed. The jail sentences of the appellant shall, however, run concurrently.