Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 970 (GAU)

Ratan Praja v. State of Assam

2016-11-02

AJIT SINGH, N.CHAUDHURY

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. The sole appellant Ratan Praja has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulation. 2. The victim of incident was Butu Praja @ Paban Praja, aged about 22 years. He was also son of the appellant. 3. According to the prosecution case, Promila Praja (PW-2) is wife of appellant. She has five children, but Butu Praja was from her first husband. Butu Praja lived with Promila Praja and the appellant in their house. On the night of 30.9.2011, at about 9.30 p.m., Butu Praja returned home after work and asked for meal. And while Promila Praja was preparing meal, Butu Praja enquired from the appellant where liquor was kept. The appellant did not like this at all. He first told Butu Praja to keep quiet and then suddenly hacked his neck with a dao. Promila Praja tried to catch hold of the appellant, but he pushed her and fled with the dao. Butu Praja died on the spot. Promila Praja raised hue and cry and narrated the incident to the local residents. On the following morning, she made the ejahar exhibit 4 at Margherita Police Station against the appellant. The police then rushed to the place of occurrence and made the inquest report exhibit 2 of the dead body, which was lying inside the drawing room of the appellant’s house. After few days, on 6.10.2011, the local people caught hold of the appellant and handed over his custody to the police. The police thereafter seized one dao from him. 4. Dr. Apurba Kumar Borthakur (PW-1) conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body. The doctor in his post mortem examination report exhibit 1 confirmed that Butu Praja died due to cut injury in the neck. He also found that neck was in fact attached with the body only with the small piece of skin. 5. During trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. He, however, did not examine any witness. 6. The trial court, relying upon the prosecution case, particularly the evidence of eye witness Promila Praja, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. 7. As mentioned above, Promila Praja is wife of appellant and mother of Butu Praja (deceased). 5. During trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. He, however, did not examine any witness. 6. The trial court, relying upon the prosecution case, particularly the evidence of eye witness Promila Praja, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. 7. As mentioned above, Promila Praja is wife of appellant and mother of Butu Praja (deceased). The incident took place in their house around 9.30 p.m. She was, therefore, naturally present in the house and is an eye witness to the incident. She has categorically testified that appellant hacked Butu Praja with a dao on his neck merely on his enquiring where the liquor was kept. Nothing has been brought out in the brief cross examination of Promila Praja to discredit her evidence. No suggestion has also been made on behalf of the appellant for her falsely implicating him. Her evidence is also corroborated by her prompt ejahar wherein she has categorically named the appellant as an assailant of Butu Praja. Even the post mortem examination report exhibit 2 of Dr. Apurba Kumar Borthakur fully corroborates the testimony of Promila Praja. On carefully examining her evidence, we find that she is a truthful witness. Sadly, she as mother had the misfortune of seeing the brutal murder of her son by none other than her husband (appellant). We appreciate her commitment for speaking nothing but truth in the court. 8. Witness Bhusan Chandra Deb (PW-3), Phagni Sarwati (PW-4) and Suneswar Tanti (PW-5) have deposed in one voice that immediately after the incident, Promila Praja had disclosed to them about killing of Butu Praja by the appellant. According to them, they also saw the injured dead body lying inside the house of appellant with blood oozing from the neck injury. The evidence of these witnesses thus fully corroborate the testimony of Promila Praja. 9. Simon Borla (PW-6) has also deposed that Promila Praja came to his place of duty around 9 p.m. on the date of incident and said to him that appellant had cut Butu Praja to death. Harudhan Gogoi (PW-7) has deposed that he wrote the ejahar on the request of Promila Praja. According to the evidence of Harku Keshra (PW-8), the appellant on the date of incident came to his house in the night and wanted to stay there. At that time, the appellant was armed with a dao. Harudhan Gogoi (PW-7) has deposed that he wrote the ejahar on the request of Promila Praja. According to the evidence of Harku Keshra (PW-8), the appellant on the date of incident came to his house in the night and wanted to stay there. At that time, the appellant was armed with a dao. And on the following morning, the appellant ran away from his house and later he came to know that appellant had killed his son Butu Praja. From the evidence Harku Keshra, it is clear that soon after committing the crime, the appellant fled from his house and stayed in the house of this witness and at that time, he had a dao with him. 10. Admittedly, the injured dead body of Butu Praja was found in the house of appellant and he has given absolutely no explanation how Butu Praja was hacked to death. The evidence of eye witness Promila Praja and the absolute silence of appellant leads to only one conclusion that he alone was the perpetrator of the crime. 11. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.