Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 102 (GAU)

Umakanta Roy v. State of Assam

2017-01-23

AJIT SINGH, SUMAN SHYAM

body2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. The sole appellant Umakanta Roy has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation. He has also been convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for 6(six) months and fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation. The jail sentences are directed to run concurrently. However, his co-accused Khamba Mia was acquitted of the charges. 2. The victims of the incident were Ajiuddin @ Babudhan, his brother Baharul Islam and their father Tamizur. Ajiuddin died whereas the other two received grievous injuries. Ajiuddin was about 13 years of age at the time of his death. 3. According to the prosecution case, on 26/12/2004, at about 2:30 p.m., Baharul (PW-1) and his younger brother – Jahirul along with their father –Tamizur Rahman @ Tamijuddin (PW-2) were going to the fields where his mother-Amu Bibi (PW-7), his sister-Rushna Begum (PW-8) and his brother-Ajiuddin were working. They were carrying rice for them. On way, just before reaching the fields, Tamizur entered the house Prabash Roy (PW-3) and the other two approached the fields. Baharul and Jahirul were suddenly intercepted by the appellant and one Khamba Mia. The appellant then assaulted Baharul with a lathi who cried for help. Seeing this from a distance, Ajiuddin rushed to the spot to rescue his brother Baharul. But the appellant then hit him on his neck with the lathi and Ajiuddin fell down on the ground being severely injured. Baharul being so assaulted and injured and seeing his brother Ajiuddin also being injured ran towards the house of Prabesh to inform his father and shouted for help. Hearing his cries, Tamijuddin came out of the house of Prabash whereafter Baharul told him that the appellant had assaulted him and Ajiuddin too. In the meantime, appellant came to Tamijuddin also and on being asked why he had assaulted his sons, the appellant also hit Tamijuddin with the lathi on his head and hands and his both hands got fractured. Prabash and Subash (PW-5) also came out of their house and saw the appellant assaulting Tamijuddin. Other villagers also came to the place of occurrence and the appellant fled. Amu Bibi (PW-6) and Rushna Begum (PW-7) also came to the place and found Ajiuddin, Baharul and Tamijuddin with injuries. Prabash and Subash (PW-5) also came out of their house and saw the appellant assaulting Tamijuddin. Other villagers also came to the place of occurrence and the appellant fled. Amu Bibi (PW-6) and Rushna Begum (PW-7) also came to the place and found Ajiuddin, Baharul and Tamijuddin with injuries. Azizur Rahman (PW-4)-the uncle of Ajiuddin-who was coming to bazaar also heard hue and cry coming from the field of Gozalghat side and on reaching to the place of occurrence he found both Ajiuddin and Tamijuddin in injured state and when asked, Tamijuddin informed him that the appellant assaulted him, Baharul and Ajiuddin. 4. All the injured were taken to Dholai Police Station first and then to the Silchar Medical College & Hospital immediately. Dr. Bishnu Pinak Ranjan (PW-11) examined Ajiuddin, Baharul and Tamijur Rahman. On Ajiuddin he found extensive soft tissue swelling on posterior neck and occipital region, brain parenchyma showing haemorrhage contusion over the parieto-occipital right side cerebellum and depressed fracture in occipital bone. According to the doctor all the injuries were caused by blunt weapon and were also grievous in nature. The doctor found blunt injury on the left thumb of Baharul which was simple in nature and caused by blunt weapon. And on Tamijuddin the doctor found cut injury over left parietal region of scalp, fracture on right forearm and left forearm fracture. Exhibit 6 is the injury report of Ajiuddin and Baharul whereas Exhibit -7 is the injury report of Tamijuddin. Ajiuddin was referred to Guwahati Medical College & Hospital considering his serious conditions. 5. Uncle Azizur of Ajiuddin lodged the First Information Report (Exhibit-8) at Police Station Dholai on the next day i.e. 27/12/2004. Nirmal Kanti Sharma (PW-12)-Sub-Inspector of Police posted at Dholai Police Station-immediately rushed to the place of occurrence, drew sketch map Exhibit-9 and searched for the appellant who was absconding and later on, arrested the appellant. 6. In the meantime, Ajiuddin succumbed to his injuries whereas Tamijuddin and Baharul recovered. Angad Rajbangshi (PW-10), Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, posted at Guwahati Medical College & Hospital at that time, conducted inquest over the dead body of Ajiuddin. Exhibit-3 is the Inquest Report and after conducting inquest, he sent the dead body of Ajiuddin for Most-mortem Examination through Exhibit-4 challan. Dr. Himangshu Das conducted the post-mortem examination in the presence of Dr. B.C.Medhi (PW-9). Exhibit-3 is the Inquest Report and after conducting inquest, he sent the dead body of Ajiuddin for Most-mortem Examination through Exhibit-4 challan. Dr. Himangshu Das conducted the post-mortem examination in the presence of Dr. B.C.Medhi (PW-9). He found diffused contusion at fronto-parietal region, temporal and occipital regions, diffused commuted fracture over the right occipital bone measuring 8 cm x 6 cm and linear fracture over right temporal bone, meningitis being congested. While examining brain, he also found that the occipital lobe along with meningitis was lacerated and diffused sub-dural haemorrhage was present in both sides of hemisphere and extra-dural haemorrhage was detected under the fracture. According to the post-mortem examination report Exhibit-2, the death was caused due to coma resulting from head injuries caused by blunt force impact which were ante-mortem in nature. 7. Subsequently, Jahan Ali (PW-8)-Sub-Inspector of Police, who received the case diary, completed the final stage of investigation and after arresting co-accused, Khamba Mia, submitted chargesheet Exhibit-1, against the appellant and Khamba Mia under Sections 341/325/324/323/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. During trial, both the appellant and Khamba Mia abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence. But the trial court relying upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid and acquitted Khamba Mia for want of evidence. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the record, we do not find sufficient merit in the instant appeal. This we say because we have found the evidence of the eye witnesses namely Baharul and Tamijuddin to be wholly truthful and reliable. Their evidence is corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses-Prabash and Subash on material particulars. Baharul has categorically deposed that while he along with his father Tamijuddin was coming to the fields to give rice to his mother, sister and brother Ajiuddin, the appellant intercepted him. Prior to that Tamijuddin entered the house of Prabash. Tamijuddin has also testified that he accompanied his sons to the field and on way entered the house of Prabash. Prabash has supported this piece of evidence that Tamijudin was at his house at the time of occurrence. Subash has also corroborated this piece of evidence and as such there is no doubt left that Tamijuddin was in the house of Prabash at the relevant time. Baharul deposed that the appellant assaulted him with a lathi. Prabash has supported this piece of evidence that Tamijudin was at his house at the time of occurrence. Subash has also corroborated this piece of evidence and as such there is no doubt left that Tamijuddin was in the house of Prabash at the relevant time. Baharul deposed that the appellant assaulted him with a lathi. This piece of evidence is supported by medical evidence of Dr. Bishnu who found injuries on Baharul which were simple in nature caused by blunt weapon. It is the evidence of Baharul that Ajiuddin came for his rescue and the appellant assaulted him too. Baharul saw the incident and he stood firm during his cross-examination. According to him, he saw his brother being injured and falling on the ground due to the assault made by the appellant with the lathi. And then he ran for his father Tamijuddin towards the house of Prabash. 10. Hearing his cries for help, Tamijuddin came out of the house of Prabash and it is the evidence of Tamijuddin that seeing him, the first information given by Baharul was that the appellant had assaulted him and his brother Ajiuddin, which was very natural and a normal human behaviour. It was the first reaction of Baharul which was an instantaneous one and there was no occasion for Baharul to give his father a wrong information implicating the appellant. 11. Tamijuddin has also deposed that he found the appellant with a lathi and on being asked as to why he had assaulted both his sons, the appellant assaulted him too with the lathi and both his hands were fractured. The fact that his both hands were fractured has also been found to be true from the evidence of Dr. Bishnu. Prabash has also deposed that he saw the appellant assaulting Tamijuddin and also saw Ajiuddin lying on the ground in an injured state. Subash also saw the appellant assaulting Tamijuddin. It is the evidence of Azizur, Amu and Rushna also that they saw Ajiuddin in an injured state when they reached the place of occurrence. All theses witnesses reached the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence within a short time span and hence their evidence has been found to be wholly reliable and corroborative of the fact that the appellant assaulted the persons and caused injuries. 12. Besides, it is the evidence of Dr. All theses witnesses reached the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence within a short time span and hence their evidence has been found to be wholly reliable and corroborative of the fact that the appellant assaulted the persons and caused injuries. 12. Besides, it is the evidence of Dr. Bishnu that he treated Ajiuddin on the date of occurrence itself for the injuries which were grievous in nature and caused by blunt weapon. Dr.B.C.Medhi has also testified to the effect that Ajiuddin died due to the injuries sustained on his neck which were caused by blunt weapon. Baharul has specifically deposed that the appellant assaulted his brother Ajiuddin on his neck with the lathi and lathi is a blunt weapon by which the injuries found in Ajiuddin, Tamijuddin and Baharul can be caused. Thus, the ocular evidence is supported by medical evidence, too. 13. Therefore, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant alone was the perpetrator of the crime and we have no hesitation but to hold that the conviction and sentence of the appellant is proper and hence not liable to be interfered with. 14. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed being devoid of merit.