Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1609 (GAU)

Raju Sahu v. State of Assam

2018-11-14

HITESH KUMAR SARMA, MIR ALFAZ ALI

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Hitesh Kumar Sarma, J. This is an appeal, preferred from jail, by the accused-appellants, against the judgment and order, dated 11.8.2016, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat, in Sessions Case No. 38 (J-T)/2015, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- each with a default clause, under Sections 302/34 IPC. 2. The fact of the prosecution case is that, on 28.12.2014, the accused-appellants assaulted and committed murder of the deceased following some altercation amongst them and threw the dead body in the Dhubi Phukhuri (pond). The dead body was recovered from the said pond on 30.12.2014. 3. On the basis of the above facts, the informant (PW2) lodged the FIR with the Mariani Police Station through the Deberpar Police Outpost which registered a case, being Mariani PS Case No. 286/2014, under Sections 302/34 of the IPC, investigated into it, collected evidence, and on completion of investigation, laid charge-sheet against the accused-appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC. 4. After exhausting all the required legal formalities, the trial of this case commenced in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat. 5. During the trial, prosecution examined as many as 8 (eight) witnesses who were subjected to cross-examination by the defence. Court also examined 1 (one) witness as CW1. 6. Heard learned amicus curiae for the appellants, Ms. S.K. Nargis. Also heard Mr. B.J. Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state respondent No. 1. 7. We have also perused the record of the learned trial court including the evidence and the impugned judgment. 8. PW1 is the VDP Secretary. He was informed by the villagers that the accused-appellants had killed the deceased. Then, he called accused-appellant, Akash Bhumiz, who told him that it was the co-accused/appellant, Raju Sahu, who had committed murder of the deceased. Thereafter, he informed about this fact to the son of the deceased and then to the police. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not witness the occurrence. Of course, he has not even claimed in his examination-in-chief to have witnessed the occurrence. 9. PW2 is the informant. He reported the occurrence to PW1. He is the son of the deceased. He lodged the FIR after recovery of the dead body in the pond after 2 days of death of the deceased. Of course, he has not even claimed in his examination-in-chief to have witnessed the occurrence. 9. PW2 is the informant. He reported the occurrence to PW1. He is the son of the deceased. He lodged the FIR after recovery of the dead body in the pond after 2 days of death of the deceased. He has expressed his ignorance about the occurrence in his cross-examination. 10. PW3 is the witness who had informed PW1 about the occurrence. He deposed that there took place a quarrel between the deceased and the accused-appellants in connection with repayment of Rs.200/- taken as loan by the deceased from the accused-appellants, following which, they dragged away the deceased. 11. PW4 is the wife of the accused-appellant Akash Bhumiz. She has implicated both the accused-appellants so far dragging and assaulting the deceased is concerned. According to her evidence, her husband/accused-appellant, Akash Bhumiz, was holding the deceased while other accused-appellant, Raju Sahu, was assaulting him. 12. PW5 is the father of the accused-appellant, Akash Bhumiz, who deposed that the accused-appellant Akash Bhumiz and his wife PW4 themselves told him that the accused-appellant Raju Sahu had killed the deceased after assaulting him although the accused-appellant Akash Bhumiz tried to save him. 13. PW6 is the witness, in front of whose shop, the deceased and the accused-appellants had an altercation in respect of an amount of Rs. 200/- taken as loan by the deceased and which he refused to repay. The accused-appellants also requested PW6 to give him a dao. 14. Such facts, appearing from the evidence on record, makes it appear that there took place an altercation between the accused-appellants and the deceased was assaulted and dragged away by the accused-appellants. Although the evidence of PW4 & PW5, taken together, shows that the PW5 has made an attempt to absolve his son/accused-appellant, Akash Bhumiz, saying that he tried to save the deceased, but, the totality of the evidence on record, makes it appear that both the accused-appellants were involved in an altercation resulting in the dragging away of the deceased, and as such, involvement of both of them in assaulting the deceased has been established. That apart, in the statement of the accused-appellant, Akash Bhumiz, recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, he has admitted that the evidence of his father/PW5 to be correct, meaning thereby, that he is involved in the commission of the offence of assault along with the co-accused-appellant, Raju Sahu, is an admitted position. 15. But, the evidence on record, does not reveal that it was the accused-appellants who had committed murder of the deceased. The postmortem examination report shows that the death is due to ante-mortem drowning. Ante-mortem drowning does not necessarily mean that drowning was by the accused-appellants. On the other hand, the evidence of PW3 makes it appear that he had provided a bamboo to the accused-appellants to search out the dead body of the deceased in the pond and the accused-appellants also made effort for searching out of the deceased, which, of course, failed. 16. Although the accused-appellants and the deceased were last seen together, before the dead body of the deceased was recovered after 2 days of his missing, yet the time gap between the incident and recovery of the dead body is so huge that to link the accused-appellants to have committed the act of drowning of the deceased, cannot be accepted to be true beyond reasonable doubt. 17. But, although in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram, reported in 2006 (12) SCC 254 , the accused-appellants must offer an explanation as to how and when they parted company of the deceased. They must furnish an explanation which appears to the court to be acceptable and satisfactory. But, in another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2014 (4) SCC 715 , has laid down that Circumstance of last seen together does not by itself necessarily lead to inference that it was accused who committed crime - There must be something more establishing connection between accused and crime, that points to guilt of accused and none else - Mere non-explanation of being last seen together with deceased person on part of accused, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against him. 18. 18. Therefore, it appears that the above decision in Kanhaiya Lal (supra) has laid down that non-explanation by the accused-appellants in the instant case itself cannot be the ground to hold any guilt on the basis of last seen together theory. In the facts of the present case, this decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is applicable. 19. In the instant case, considering the huge gap of the incident of altercation and assault upon the deceased by the accused-appellants and the recovery of the dead body, coupled with the fact that the postmortem examination report as regards ante-mortem drowning of the deceased, needs to be supported by corroborative evidence that it was the accused-appellants who had made him fall in the pond resulting in his death due to drowning. In the absence of any such findings, it will not be prudent to hold the accused-appellants guilty for offence under Sections 302/34 IPC, particularly when there is no eyewitness as well as no such circumstantial evidence pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused-appellants only. But, the evidence on record, beyond doubt, established that the accused-appellants had assaulted the deceased and dragged him away. The medical evidence, appearing in the postmortem examination report, also shows that on the inner aspect of the scalp, there was a contusion of size 4 cm X 4 cm. 20. Whatever it may be, the assault, as has been stated above, on the deceased by the accused-appellants, has been unambiguously established, and therefore, this court is of the view that the accused-appellants are guilty of commission of offence under Section 323 IPC. 21. Accordingly, we convict the accused-appellants and sentence them to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 (one) year each for offence under Section 323 IPC. 22. The judgment of the learned trial court is, accordingly, modified and conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused-appellants, under Sections 302/34 IPC, is set aside. Now, the conviction and the sentence of the accused-appellants be as indicated in paragraph-21 above. 23. The period already undergone by the accused-appellants in judicial custody, during the investigation, trial, and after the trial, shall be set off against the substantive sentence. 24. This court records its appreciation for the assistance rendered by learned Amicus Curiae. The learned Amicus-curiae be paid an amount of Rs. 7,500/- as remuneration. 25. Send down the LCR with a copy of this judgment.