Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 890 (GAU)

RANJIT TANTI v. STATE OF ASSAM

2018-06-01

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, AJIT SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : AJIT SINGH, J. 1. The appellant Ranjit Tanti has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulation. 2. The victim of the incident was Mohan Tanti, aged about 22 years. He was adopted son of the appellant. 3. According to the prosecution case, appellant used to reside in the same house at Tulip Tea Garden (Purab Line) in Sonitpur District along with his wife - Hema Tanti (PW-2) and their adopted son-Mohan Tanti. On 12.05.2008, the appellant went to the Dhekiajuli Police Station at about 7 p.m. with an axe and surrendered before police. He told Bimal Chandra Deka (PW-9) -the then Officer-in-charge of that Police Station- that he had killed someone. Bimal Chandra Deka then sent Sub-Inspector Mohendra Bora (PW-8) to the Tea Garden after making Exhibit-12 General Diary Entry. Mohendra Bora, on reaching the house of the appellant, found the dead body of Mohan Tanti in a room inside the house being smeared in blood. He then sent the body of Mohan Tanti for post-mortem examination and recorded statement of witnesses, drew sketch map etc. He also seized the axe vide Material Exhibit-6. 4. Hema Tanti made the First Information Report (Exhibit-3) at the Dhekiajuli Police Station on the next day i.e. 13.05.2008 stating inter-alia that the appellant had a quarrel with Mohan Tanti at about 4 p.m. on the previous day on various issues and he hacked her son Mohan Tanti with the blunt side of an axe in the house. The appellant was subsequently 5. Dr. Gopendra Mohan Das (PW-1) conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Mohan Tanti. He found (i) sharp cut injury 3" x 2" x deep to bone size over right parietal region of scalp with fracture of right parietal bone and (ii) sharp cut injury 4"x 2" x deep to bone size over left parietal region of scalp with fracture left parietal bone. According to him, death was due to hemorrhagic shock due to cut injuries over scalp with intracranial hemorrhage. His post mortem examination report is Exhibit-1. As the investigation was completed Mohendra Nath Bora submitted Exhibit-7 charge-sheet against the appellant for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. According to him, death was due to hemorrhagic shock due to cut injuries over scalp with intracranial hemorrhage. His post mortem examination report is Exhibit-1. As the investigation was completed Mohendra Nath Bora submitted Exhibit-7 charge-sheet against the appellant for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. During trial, appellant abjured his guilt, but the trial court relying upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we are of the view that the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. It is seen that during trial, all the witnesses turned hostile. Even the informant-Hema Tanti-turned hostile and deposed that she did not even lodge the First Information report and did not know as to how Mohan died. Debaru Gowala (PW-2) deposed that he did not know anything about the occurrence, Sankar Sabbar (PW-3) -VDP Secretary of Tulip Tea Garden also deposed that he did not know Mohan Tanti or how the occurrence took place, co-villager Rajesh Tanti (PW-6) and Pabitra Tanti (PW-7) also deposed that they did not know Mohan Tanti and did not give any statement before the police. But, the evidence of both the police officers Mohendra Nath Bora and Bimal Chandra Deka remain unshaken during their cross-examinations and the same are supported by cogent medical as well as other documentary evidence. Bimal Chandra Deka has deposed that the appellant surrendered before him in the police station. This testimony is supported by the evidence of Binay Paul (PW-5) , who was present in the police station at that time. He has categorically deposed that the appellant had surrendered in the police station with an axe and also told the police that he had killed one of his relatives as he used to cause nuisance by consuming alcohol. Bimal Chandra Deka then sent Mohendra Nath Bora to the place of occurrence making Exhibit-12 General Diary Entry which is proved. Mohendra Nath Bora found the dead body of Mohan Tanti inside the house of the appellant. Bimal Chandra Deka then sent Mohendra Nath Bora to the place of occurrence making Exhibit-12 General Diary Entry which is proved. Mohendra Nath Bora found the dead body of Mohan Tanti inside the house of the appellant. Though, the appellant took a plea during his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure that he was not present in the house and was at work, he did not produce any evidence in support of his said plea and he could not explain as to how the dead body of Mohan Tanti was found lying inside his house. It is true that Hema Tanti subsequently turned hostile, but in her First Information report, she stated that the appellant had a quarrel with Mohan on some issues and he hacked Mohan Tanti with the blunt side of an axe. The fact of having a quarrel is also reiterated by Binoy Paul (PW-5) . So, it is very much likely that the appellant in a fit of the anger amidst the quarrel assaulted Mohan Tanti with an axe and killed him. The postmortem report suggests that the injuries were inflicted with sharp edge of the weapon, though in the First Information report it was mentioned that the assaults were made with blunt side of the axe. We, accordingly, confirm the finding of the trial court that appellant alone was the perpetrator of the crime. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that even accepting the prosecution version in totality, the offence against the appellant would not be under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but under Part I or Part II of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. We find sufficient force in this submission. 9. In the case of Muthu vs. State AIR 2008 SC 1 , it has been held that when in the heat of the moment or in a fit of anger a person does an act without premeditation that person must also be punished but his punishment should be lesser than that of premeditated offences. The Supreme Court has observed that it is for this reason that Exceptions 1 and 4 have been inserted in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court has observed that it is for this reason that Exceptions 1 and 4 have been inserted in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code clearly provides that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 10. Apparently, the incident took place on a sudden quarrel without any premeditation between the appellant and Mohan Tanti. The appellant somehow lost his self-control and in the hit of passion caused two injuries on the head of Mohan Tanti with an axe. It is unlikely that a father would deliberately cause death to his son, although adopted. Having regard to the facts of the case, we are of the considered view that the act committed by the appellant would fall under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. Consequently, we set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him thereunder and instead convict him under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code and award a sentence of 8 years rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of fine is however affirmed. 12. With the above modification, the appeal is partly allowed.