Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 124 (GAU)

Lara Maji v. State of Assam

2017-01-27

AJIT SINGH, SUMAN SHYAM

body2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. The sole appellant - Lara Maji 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 Shanti Maji, aged about 70 years. 3. According to the prosecution case, Shanti Maji was staying in the common house of her son-in-law - Boloram Maji and his younger brother- Mudoi Maji (PW-2). The house was situated at village Barhampur, Sibasthan Gaon, falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Nagaon Sadar. On 12.8.2006, at about 10 a.m., the appellant, armed with a dao, came to the house of Mudoi Maji and enquired about Shanti Maji. The appellant also told Mudoi Maji that he often saw Shanti Maji in his dream. At that time, Boloram Maji was not present in the house and instead, Moneswar Maji (PW-3) was present. Moneswar Maji is son in-law of Mudoi Maji. The appellant then first gave a fist blow to Moneswar Maji and thereafter rushed towards Shanti Maji, who tried to run away, but could not succeed. The appellant, in the courtyard of the house, struck Shanti Maji with a dao on her neck and stomach. Seeing this, Mudoi Maji got terrified and ran away to Barhampur. From there, he promptly telephoned the police of Itachali Police Out-Post and narrated about the incident. This telephonic information was received by the In-charge of Police Out-Post - Hara Kanta Khound (PW-6), who made G.D. Entry No.208 dated 12.8.2006 of the same and proceeded to the place of occurrence. He also forwarded the information to Officer In-charge of Nagaon Police Station. Mudoi Maji even made ejahar exhibit 2 against the appellant. At the place of occurrence, Hara Kanta Khound saw the injured dead body of Shanti Maji. Thereafter, he referred the body for post mortem examination. He also conducted the search in the house of appellant and recovered a dao from one corner. The dao was seized vide seizure list exhibit-1. 4. Dr. Sarbeswar Bora (PW-5) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Shanti Maji. He found a sharp cut injury on right side of neck, a sharp cut injury on the right side in abdominal thoracic region and a sharp cut injury on left wrist. The doctor also found fractures on left leg bone and left forearm. 4. Dr. Sarbeswar Bora (PW-5) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Shanti Maji. He found a sharp cut injury on right side of neck, a sharp cut injury on the right side in abdominal thoracic region and a sharp cut injury on left wrist. The doctor also found fractures on left leg bone and left forearm. He, in his post mortem examination report exhibit 1, opined that Shanti Maji died due to injuries caused to her, which were ante mortem in nature. 5. Investigating Officer – Hara Kanta Khound, after investigation, filed the charge-sheet against the appellant for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. During trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. The trial court, however, essentially relying upon the evidence of Mudoi Maji as well as the post mortem examination report, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. 6. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the trial court committed an illegality in relying upon the evidence of Mudoi Maji. According to the learned counsel, the evidence of Mudoi Maji stands falsified by the evidence of Moneswar Maji. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, defended the conviction and sentence of the appellant. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered view that the appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. The incident took place in the house of Mudoi Maji, which he shared with his elder brother Boloram Maji. Shanti Maji being mother-in-law of Boloram Maji had come to stay in the house 3-4 days prior to the date of incident. Boloram Maji was not present in the house at the time of incident, but Mudoi Maji was present. Mudoi Maji has clearly testified that on 12.8.2006, at about 10 a.m., the appellant came to his house and enquired about Shanti Maji, whereafter he hacked her to death with a dao. According to Mudoi Maji, seeing the incident, he got terrified and ran to Barhampur, from where, he telephonically informed the police about the incident. Hara Kanta Khound was In-charge of the Police Out-Post and it was he, who received the telephonic information. According to the evidence of Hara Kanta Khound, he recorded the information in G.D. Entry No.208 dated 12.8.2006, wherein the name of appellant is clearly mentioned as the assailant of Shanti Maji. Hara Kanta Khound was In-charge of the Police Out-Post and it was he, who received the telephonic information. According to the evidence of Hara Kanta Khound, he recorded the information in G.D. Entry No.208 dated 12.8.2006, wherein the name of appellant is clearly mentioned as the assailant of Shanti Maji. All this was done within 45 minutes from the time of incident. Therefore, there was no scope to falsely implicate the appellant either by Mudoi Maji or Hara Kanta Khound. The evidence of Mudoi Maji is also corroborated by the post mortem examination report exhibit 2 prepared by Dr. Sarbeswar Bora. The report confirmed that the death of Shanti Maji was due to cut injury, which could be caused with a dao. We, therefore, find no good ground to disagree with the finding of the trial court that appellant alone was the perpetrator of the crime. 8. It is true that Mudoi Maji did say that at the time of incident Moneswar Maji was by his side and Moneswar Maji has denied this fact. According to Moneswar Maji, neither he nor Mudoi Maji were in the house, when the incident took place. But Moneswar Maji actually turned hostile and was declared as such by the prosecution. And, for this reason alone, the evidence of Mudoi Maji cannot be rejected. 9. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.