Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1534 (GAU)

RAM BHUYAN v. STATE OF ASSAM

2018-10-11

M.R.PATHAK, PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA

body2018
JUDGMENT : M. R. PATHAK, J. 1. The accused appellant Sri Ram Bhuyan has preferred this Criminal Appeal from jail being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.05.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in Sessions Case No. 92 (NL) of 2015, arising out of G.R. Case No. 2093/2014, corresponding to North Lakhimpur Police Station Case No. 1128 of 2014 by which the appellant/accused has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-only, in default of payment of the same to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months, with the observation that fine amount, if realised, shall be handed over to the family of the deceased. 2. The prosecution case, as it emerges from the First Information Report dated 21.10.2014 (Exhibit-3) lodged by one Aklu Bhuyan (PW.1) before the Officer-in-Charge of Nowboicha Police Outpost is that in the afternoon around 04:00 p.m. on 21.10.2014 when he returned home from his work on daily wages, his son Mridul Bhuyan (PW.6) informed him that his (informant's) elder brother, Sri Ram Bhuyan picked up a quarrel with his wife Rajani Bhuyan, punched his wife on her face, threw her on the ground, kicked her on the stomach, assaulted her with bamboo stick, thereby causing her death and he was informed that the dead body of his wife was lying on the bank of the river Singra and after having a look at the said dead body, he had straight way went to Nowboicha Outpost and informed the police about the incident. 3. On receipt of the said FIR, Nowboicha Police Outpost forwarded the same to the Lakhimpur Police Station wherein Lakhimpur PS Case No. 1128/2014 under Section 302 IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2093/2014 was registered against the accused/appellant. 4. 3. On receipt of the said FIR, Nowboicha Police Outpost forwarded the same to the Lakhimpur Police Station wherein Lakhimpur PS Case No. 1128/2014 under Section 302 IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2093/2014 was registered against the accused/appellant. 4. During investigation, police on visiting the place of occurrence, drawn its sketch map (Exhibit- 4-4), conducted the inquest on the dead body and prepared the Inquest Report (Exhibit-6), sent the said dead body for post mortem examination, seized Lecheri, split bamboo of Bhaluka variety (Exhibit-1) (MR No. 301/2014), which was about 4 (four) feet long of which one end was split about 2 (two) feet and was stained with blood, arrested the accused appellant on 22.10.2014, recorded the statements of the persons acquainted with the facts of the case under Section 161 Cr.P.C., collected the post-mortem report of the deceased Rajani Bhuyan (Exhibit-2) and on completion of the investigation, finding prima facie material, police filed the Charge-Sheet vide No. 85/2015 dated 25.03.2015 under Section 302 IPC against the accused/appellant (Exhibit-5). The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur on 14.05.2015 committed the said G.R. Case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur; wherein it was registered as Sessions Case No. 92 (NL) of 2015. 5. On 10.06.2015, learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur transferred the said Sessions Case No. 92 (NL) of 2015to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, for disposal of the same. On 10.06.2015, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused/appellant for allegedly killing Rajani Bhuyan and the charge was read over and explained to him to which the accused/appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As such, the trial commenced. 6. In order to bring home the charges, against the accused/appellant, the prosecution, examined 8 (eight) witnesses on its behalf. The defence only cross-examined the prosecution witnesses, but did not adduce any evidence. The statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 02.09.2015, where he denied killing said Rajani Bhuyan stating that allegation brought against him are false and did not adduce any evidence. 7. The defence only cross-examined the prosecution witnesses, but did not adduce any evidence. The statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 02.09.2015, where he denied killing said Rajani Bhuyan stating that allegation brought against him are false and did not adduce any evidence. 7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur upon appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, recorded the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence as aforesaid and hence, the present appeal. 8. We have heard Mr. Bhaskar Nath, learned Amicus Curiae, for the accused/appellant and Mr. Hrishikesh Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam representing the State. 9. Mr. Nath, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant stated that though the prosecution tried to establish the case by way of adducing evidence of alleged eye witness to incident, but it failed to prove the intention/motive of killing of the victim by the accused person. Mr. Nath also submitted that the statement of the witnesses through which the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused are interested witness and are close relatives of the deceased and not through any independent witness. As such, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the impugned conviction and sentence, being bad in law should be set aside and quashed. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, supporting the judgment and order of conviction and the sentence, submitted that prosecution has placed sufficient materials to prove the guilt of the accused. 11. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the learned Trial Judge, apart from the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court. 12. In order to appreciate the arguments, advanced by the learned counsels appearing for both the parties and to examine the correctness of the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction, it will be appropriate to briefly scrutinize the evidence on record. 13. The prosecution examined Dr. Munindra Narayan Bordoloi (PW.4), the Autopsy Doctor. In his evidence in chief said PW.4 deposed that on 23.10.2014, while he was serving as Senior Medical & Health Officer on post-mortem duty at North Lakhimpur Civil Hospital, he conducted the post mortem on the deceased persons Rajani Bhuyan and gave the post mortem reports vide Exhibit-2. 13. The prosecution examined Dr. Munindra Narayan Bordoloi (PW.4), the Autopsy Doctor. In his evidence in chief said PW.4 deposed that on 23.10.2014, while he was serving as Senior Medical & Health Officer on post-mortem duty at North Lakhimpur Civil Hospital, he conducted the post mortem on the deceased persons Rajani Bhuyan and gave the post mortem reports vide Exhibit-2. According to him, the said deceased was about 23 years old and was identified by the accompanying constables Saiful Hussain, one Laba Bhuyan and husband of the deceased Aklu Bhuyan, informant and during his examination of the said dead body, he found a healthy female body of average built with rigor mortis present with the following wounds/injuries: (i) One linear cut mark present at the left temporal area, cutting the left year horizontally of size 4" X 1 X X. (ii) One cut mark at left cheek deep to the mandible on the left side. The injury is deep to brain matter. The said Autopsy Doctor (PW.4) also deposed and opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries caused by sharp object, which were anti mortem in nature. In his cross examination by the defence, said the PW.4 stated that the linear cut injury may not cause by lathi (stick), it may be caused by bamboo 'Lecheri'. 14. It is seen that the prosecution by examining said PW.4, the Autopsy Doctor, could prove the injuries found on the body of the deceased were anti mortem in nature and also the cause of her death. We are, therefore, required to see as to whether the prosecution could bring home the charge under Section 302 of the IPC against the accused appellant. 15. Pw.1, Aklu Bhuyan, informant of the case is the husband of the deceased and also the younger brother of the accused. Though, he is not an eye witness to the incident, in his evidence-in-chief deposed that when he reached home late afternoon after his work on the date of the incident, his son Mridul, PW-6 informed him about the incident and then he went to the place of occurrence and found his wife lying dead on the bank of river Singara and thereafter he went straight to the Nowboicha Police Station where he lodged the FIR on the day evening on the same day i.e. on 21.10.2014. 16. Pw.2, Budhu Bhuyan is the nephew of the deceased as well as of the accused, an eye witness to the incident, in his evidence-in-chief the PW.2 categorically stated that on returning from the school around noon he went to the bank of river Singara to mow grass and saw the accused, his uncle assaulting his aunt with bamboo stick and came back to call Mridul PW-6 (son of the deceased). Then both of them returned to the place of occurrence and found his aunt lying dead. From said place he and Mridul went to Nowboicha Police Outpost, informed the police about the incident and police recovered the body. He also stated that his uncle, PW.1 Aklu also came to the said place. In his cross examination by the defence, said PW.2, Budhu Bhuyan reiterated that he saw accused assaulting his aunt by bamboo stick. Said PW.2 in his cross further reckoned that their land was mortgaged to people residing on the other bank of the river and the accused, his uncle, without informing his father wanted to redeem the said mortgaged land. He deposed that no quarrel between the accused and the deceased was ever seen by him and his aunt, the deceased use to drink and quarrel with co-villagers. 17. Pw.3, Lachu Bhumij is not an eye witness to the incident, but saw the dead body of the deceased on the place of occurrence and also saw that police recovered a stick from the said place. He is also a seizure witness. In his cross examination, he reiterated that he saw police recovering a stick and he signed the seizure list. 18. Pw.5, Smti Lilamoni Bhuyan is only a hearsay witnesses to the incident. 19. Pw.6, Mridul Bhuyan, son of the deceased, deposed that the accused is his uncle, father's elder brother. He further deposed that on being informed by PW.2, Budhu Bhuyan that the accused was assaulting his mother, he went to the place of occurrence and saw accused assaulting his mother with stick and when he tried to save her, the accused chased him to assault and then he ran away from the said place and informed the incident to the Nowboicha Police Out Post. He also deposed that when he returned with police to the place of occurrence, found his mother already dead. He also deposed that when he returned with police to the place of occurrence, found his mother already dead. He stated that he informed his father PW.1, Aklu Bhuyan about the incident over phone. During his cross examination by defence, the said witness PW.6 categorically stated that the victim was assaulted by lathi (stick) and that she did not die as a result of falling on stone on the bank of the river. 20. Pw.7, Indreswar Gogoi, the Investigating Officer of the case stated that he seized vide the Seizure List, Exhibit-1, a bamboo stick of Bhaluka variety from the place of occurrence, which was used at the time of the incident and after completion of his investigation he submitted the report. In his cross, the said Investigating Officer stated that PW.6, Mridul, son of the deceased did not state before him that he had informed his father PW.1 about the incident over phone. 21. Pw.8, Narayan Tamuli, another police personnel, who submitted the charge-sheet in the case before the Court. In evidence-in-evidence, he stated that when he received the diary of the case from the concerned Officer-in-Charge of Lakhimpur Police Station, he found that investigation was already complete and only the post-mortem examination report of the deceased was left out to be collected and accordingly, on collecting the same, he submitted the charge sheet. During his cross examination by the defence, he stated that he had submitted the charge-sheet only and denied the suggestion that he filed the charge-sheet on false ground. 22. After completion of recording of evidence of the prosecution, the learned Trial Judge on 02.09.2015 recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and brought to his notice all the accusations against him while recording evidence led by the prosecution. But the accused denied all such accusations and also refrained from adducing any evidence from his side. 23. In the case of Anwar Ali -Vs- State of U. P., (2011) 15 SCC 360, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that "It is a settled principle of law that merely because the witness is a relative or friend of the deceased, it would not be a sufficient ground to discard his statement. 23. In the case of Anwar Ali -Vs- State of U. P., (2011) 15 SCC 360, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that "It is a settled principle of law that merely because the witness is a relative or friend of the deceased, it would not be a sufficient ground to discard his statement. Once the prosecution has been able to prove its case by leading admissible and cogent evidence with reference to statement of the witnesses, the investigation conducted by the police officer and documentary evidence, then the statements of the eyewitnesses which are corroborating the prosecution case cannot be brushed aside only because they are relatives of the deceased. 24. It is seen from the evidence of PW.2, Budhu Bhuyan and PW.6, Mridul Bhuyan, noted above, that they saw the accused appellant assaulting the deceased by a bamboo stick, which was recovered and seized by police in presence of witnesses, from the place of occurrence on the date of incident itself, i.e. on 21.10.2014. The prosecution could prove the said seizure Exhibit-1 through its witnesses, PW.3, Lachu Bhumij and said fact was also corroborated by the concerned Investigating Officer PW.7, Indreswar Gogoi. 25. The evidence of the eye witnesses to the incident PW.2, Budhu Bhuyan and PW.6, Mridul Bhuyan, regarding assault on the deceased by the accused on the date and place of occurrence with bamboo stick could not be thwarted or demolished by the defence in evidence, which remained intact. 26. Moreover, the medical evidence of the Autopsy Doctor, PW.4 and he opinion that the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries caused upon the body of the deceased, completely corroborates the evidence adduced by those two witnesses PW.2 and PW.6 for the prosecution. It is also not the case of the accused appellant that the evidence adduced by the eye witnesses and close relatives of the deceased on behalf of the prosecution are not reliable and untrustworthy. 27. It is also not the case of the accused appellant that the evidence adduced by the eye witnesses and close relatives of the deceased on behalf of the prosecution are not reliable and untrustworthy. 27. It is a settled principle of law that once the statement of a witness is found trustworthy and is duly corroborated by other evidence; there is no reason for the Court to reject the statement of such witness merely on the ground that it was a statement of a related or interested witness, but for the correct approach of the Trial Court is to do justice and ensure that the guilty did not go scot-free. 28. The consistent statement of the eyewitnesses PW.2 and PW.6 which were fully supported and corroborated by other witnesses i.e. the Doctor PW.4 and the Investigators of the crime PWs. 7 and 8, including recovery of the deceased as well as the bamboo lathi (stick) from the place of occurrence, immediate lodging of FIR, the post-mortem report of the deceased establish the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the eyewitness PWs. 2 and 6 cannot be brushed aside merely because they are being relatives of the deceased, as it is found to be reliable and worthy of credence corroborated by the medical evidence including the post-mortem report of the deceased and the evidence and opinion of the doctor, which has justifiably been relied upon by the Court. The discussion and findings of the trial court against the accused persons is found to have sufficient merit. 29. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the appreciation of the evidence or any other legal infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.10.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in Sessions Case No. 92(NL)/2015, arising out of G.R. Case No. 2093/2014 and we affirm the conviction and sentence recorded by the said Trial Judge convicting the appellant-accused herein. 30. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed and the appellant-accused shall serve out the sentence. 31. We appreciate the valuable assistance rendered by both Mr. Bhaskar Nath, learned Amicus Curiae, for the appellant-accused and Mr. Hrishikesh Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. The State Legal Services Authority, Assam, Guwahati shall pay Rs. 7,500/- to Mr. Bhaskar Nath, learned Amicus Curiae, towards his professional fee, on raising a bill. 32. 31. We appreciate the valuable assistance rendered by both Mr. Bhaskar Nath, learned Amicus Curiae, for the appellant-accused and Mr. Hrishikesh Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. The State Legal Services Authority, Assam, Guwahati shall pay Rs. 7,500/- to Mr. Bhaskar Nath, learned Amicus Curiae, towards his professional fee, on raising a bill. 32. Registry shall return the records of Sessions Case No. 92 (NL) of 2015 to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, with a copy of this Judgment. Registry shall also furnish a copy of this Judgment to the appellant-accused Sri Ram Bhuyan through the Superintendent of District Jail, North Lakhimpur.