Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 150 (GAU)

Hari Bahadur Adhikari @ Chetri v. State of Assam

2017-02-03

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, AJIT SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. The sole appellant Hari Bahadur Adhikari @ Chetry 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. 2. The victim of the incident was appellant’s wife - Radhika Chetry, aged about 47 years. 3. According to the prosecution case, at about 6:30 p.m. on 13.10.2011, while the appellant, his wife-Radhika and their married daughter Manjuli (PW-8) were there in the house and Radhika was bathing behind the house, the appellant hacked her with a dao, as a result of which, she died. At that time, Bhupal Adhikari (PW-1), the son of the appellant, was not at home and had gone to his maternal uncle’s house nearby and only Manjuli witnessed the incident. Seeing the occurrence, she raised a hue and cry and hearing the same, Bhupal came back home only to find his mother Radhika injured and on being asked, Manjuli told him that the appellant had committed the offence and fled. Brother Purna Newar (PW-2) of Radhika and Kunti Newar (PW-5) - younger sister of Radhika - hearing the hue and cry also came to the house of appellant and saw the appellant fleeing through the backside of his house. Kunti was told by Putuli - the daughter of appellant that appellant had committed the offence. Annan Newar (PW-3) - neighbour of the appellant, Sanjay Newar (PW-4)and Kamala Newar (PW-6) - both nephews of Radhika also arrived at the place of occurrence hearing the hue and cry and found Radhika in an injured condition. Radhika was taken to hospital, but she succumbed to her injuries on way. It may be mentioned herein that none, who immediately arrived at the place of occurrence, found the appellant in the house, and later on, appellant surrendered before the police. 4. Ejahar (Exhibit-1) of the incident was made by Bhupal (PW-1) at Police Out-Post Bogibil under Police Station Barbaruah on the next day i.e. on 14.10.2011. On receiving the information, Investigating Officer – Someshwar Gohain (PW-11) rushed to the spot and prepared the sketch map Exhibit-7 and recorded statements of the witnesses. He also seized the Khamti Dao vide Seizure list Exhibit -8. The dead body of Radhika was sent for post mortem examination. 5. Dr. Manuj Kumar Singha (PW-9) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Radhika. He also seized the Khamti Dao vide Seizure list Exhibit -8. The dead body of Radhika was sent for post mortem examination. 5. Dr. Manuj Kumar Singha (PW-9) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Radhika. He found one cut injury over right elbow joint 5 cm x 2 cm muscle deep, one cut injury over right wrist joint 4 cm x 2 cm muscle deep, one cut injury over right hand from in between right finger and middle finger 3 cm above the wrist joint size 7 cm x 2 cm, one cut injury over the nose in between the two eyebrows size 2 cm x 1 cm into bone deep, one cut injury over right temporal area of the right scalp size 7 cm x 3 cm into bone deep, one cut injury over left shoulder joint 3 cm x 1 cm muscle deep and fracture of right temporal bone of the scalp. The doctor opined that Radhika died due to combined effect of comma, hemorrhage and shock, resulting from the injuries, which were caused by sharp cutting weapon and were homicidal in nature. His post mortem examination report is exhibit 5. 6. On completion of investigation, Dibya Jyoti Dutta (PW-10) submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code vide Exhibit-6. He also arrested the appellant and got the statement of Manjuli recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. During trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant stated that he went to the police station only to inform about the occurrence. But the trial court mainly relying on the evidence adduced by Manjuli, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the records, we are of the considered view that the appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. We say so because we find the evidence of sole eye witness-Manjuli (PW-8) to be reliable, cogent and trustworthy. She was present there in the house at the time of occurrence and was feeding her baby. It is her evidence that Radhika (her mother) went to bath and the appellant (her father) followed her. We say so because we find the evidence of sole eye witness-Manjuli (PW-8) to be reliable, cogent and trustworthy. She was present there in the house at the time of occurrence and was feeding her baby. It is her evidence that Radhika (her mother) went to bath and the appellant (her father) followed her. After sometime, Manjuli heard her mother calling her and when she went to the backyard, she saw the appellant dealing dao blows on Radhika. Seeing this, she shouted at the appellant and then he fled leaving Radhika behind. The evidence of Manjuli is corroborated by the evidence of Purna (PW-2) and Kunti (PW-5). Both of them have categorically deposed that they saw the appellant fleeing from the house immediately after the incident. And, it is the evidence of Bhupal (PW-1) that Manjuli told him that their father (appellant) had committed the offence and fled, immediately after the incident. It is highly unbelievable as to why the son and daughter of the appellant would speak a lie to implicate their father falsely for the murder of their mother. The evidence of Manjuli is further corroborated by her statement Exhibit-2 made before the Magistrate, which was recorded immediately after the occurrence and as such, no improvement has been made in her statement. Besides, the eye witness has successfully stood the witness box and there is hardly any material discrepancy in her evidence to doubt her credibility. On the contrary, the witnesses have corroborated one another on material particulars and as such, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is the sole perpetrator of the crime. The evidence of Manjuli is corroborated by medical evidence also, where the doctor has opined that the injuries on Radhika had been made by a sharp cutting weapon and Khamti Dao is such a weapon, which was seized. 9. We, therefore, having regard to the above discussions as well as the evidence of the witnesses, find ourselves in complete agreement with the finding of the trial court that appellant alone was the sole perpetrator of the crime. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.