Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1306 (GAU)

Sitaram Tanti v. State of Assam

2017-09-16

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : AJIT SINGH, J. The sole appellant-Sitaram Tanti 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. 2. The victim of the incident was Anami Tanti, aged about 28 years and the appellant is her elder brother. 3. According to the prosecution case, the appellant, victim Anami Tanti, their father Ganesh Tanti (PW-1) and mother Mina Tanti (PW-2) lived together in a house situated at Line No. 9, Rajgarh Tea Estate, falling within the jurisdiction of Bardubi Police Station. The appellant is a widower and has two minor sons, namely, Manoj Tanti (PW-3) and Rohan. They also lived in the same house. On 26.1.2011, around 11 p.m., the appellant returned home in a drunken state and for no apparent reason, started assaulting mercilessly Anami Tanti with dao, iron rod and lathi. At that time, Anami was helpless and died on the spot due to multiple injuries caused to her. After beating Anami Tanti to death, the appellant went to sleep with Manoj and Rohan. The incident was witnessed by Mina and Manoj. Ganesh Tanti could not witness the incident because he had gone out for work. On the following morning, i.e., 27.1.2011, Ganesh Tanti was informed about the incident by Mina and nephew Anil Tanti. Ganesh, in turn, lodged the ejahar - Exhibit 1 at Police Outpost Langkashi, wherein he named the appellant as the assailant of Anami. The ejahar was, thereafter, registered as First Information Report. The police reached the place of occurrence and arrested the appellant on 27.1.2011 itself. The police also seized one dao, iron rod and branch of tree about 2 feet long vide Seizure List Exhibit-3. 4. Dr. Sailen Roy (PW-8) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Anami. He found one fracture on frontal bone with depression and one another fracture on temporal bone with the presence of blood clot. He also found one incised wound on right elbow apart from two abrasions on both the knees and two lacerations on left leg. The doctor in his post mortem examination report exhibit 2 opined that Anami died due to head injury caused by hard and blunt object. He also clarified that incised wound was caused by sharp edged weapon. 5. During the trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. 6. The doctor in his post mortem examination report exhibit 2 opined that Anami died due to head injury caused by hard and blunt object. He also clarified that incised wound was caused by sharp edged weapon. 5. During the trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. 6. The trial court mainly relying on the evidence of Mina and Manoj as well as the post mortem examination report convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 7. As mentioned above, Mina is mother of the appellant and victim Anami. The incident, admittedly, took place in a house in which they lived together. Mina was, therefore, naturally present in the house, when the incident took place. She has categorically testified that on the night of incident, the appellant returned home in a drunken state and assaulted Anami with dao, iron rod and other things, due to which, she died on the spot. According to her evidence, she even resisted, but the appellant did not stop from causing injuries to Anami. She has also testified that in the morning, she narrated the incident to Ganesh, who lodged the report against the appellant at the Police Station. This witness is an unfortunate mother who helplessly saw killing of her daughter by her son. Even then also she has bravely testified against her son knowing-fully well that he could be sentenced to imprisonment for life and she will lose him forever after already having lost her daughter. On examining the evidence of Mina, we have no hesitation in holding that she is reliable and truthful. Nothing has been brought out in her brief cross-examination also to suggest why she would falsely implicate her son (appellant). In fact, we appreciate her honesty and respect for justice. The evidence of Mina is further corroborated by Manoj (her grandson) who is also the son of the appellant. Though he is a child witness aged 10 years, he has deposed that at the time of incident, he was in the house along with grandmother (Mina) and saw his father (appellant) assaulting his parental aunty (Anami) due to which she died. In the cross-examination, Manoj, however, admitted that since there was darkness inside the house, he could not see who assaulted Anami. But the fact remains that except for appellant and Mina, there was no third person in the house when the incident took place. 8. In the cross-examination, Manoj, however, admitted that since there was darkness inside the house, he could not see who assaulted Anami. But the fact remains that except for appellant and Mina, there was no third person in the house when the incident took place. 8. As many as five injuries including two fractures on the head were found on the body of Anami by Dr. Sailen Roy (PW-8). The Doctor has opined that injuries were caused by hard and blunt object except for one injury, which was caused by sharp edged weapon. Therefore, the evidence of doctor also fully corroborates the evidence of Mina. 9. In the result, we are of the considered view that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence in convicting the appellant. No ground for interference is called for. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.