Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 678 (GAU)

Birlan Narzary v. State of Assam

2019-05-30

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, NANI TAGIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : AM Bujor Barua, J. Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 16.09.2015 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Kamrup(Metro), Assam passed in Sessions Case No.370(K)/2010, whereby the accused/appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.10000/- and in default, rigorous imprisonment for another 06(six) months for committing the offence under Section 302 IPC and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in default, to undergo a simple imprisonment for one day for committing the offence under Section 309 IPC. 3. An ejahar dated 27.01.2010 was lodged by Dhiraj Wari before the In-charge of Jalukbari Police Station inter-alia alleging that between 5. P.M. to 9 P.M. of 24.01.2010, the accused appellant being a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Bodo, Gauhati University had killed his younger sister Jharna Wary in cold blood inside his residential quarter No.10(A). Prior to the ejahar being lodged as regards the death caused to the younger sister of the informant, there is also a GD Entry No.547 dated 24.01.2010, which was entered at 9/10 p.m. inter-alia providing that one Nausad Ali and Pirjahan Ali who was accompanied by another person had entered the police out post and was informed that the other person was found about 50 yards away from the gate of the out post and the person looked ill and was shaking all over. The two persons who brought him to the police out post stated that when they had asked the concerned person, he told them that he had killed a girl in the Quarter No.10(A) of the University and further that he had attempted to commit suicide by consuming phenyl. 4. As per the evidence of the Investigating Officer PW-10, upon receipt of the GD entry, the person concerned was sent to the Jalukbari Ayurvedic Hospital for treatment and thereafter he was referred to the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital (in short GMCH). The Investigating Officer also stated that immediately thereafter he visited the place of occurrence at Quarter No.10(A) of Gauhati University campus and found one girl was lying in an injured condition with blood stains in her clothes. The Investigating Officer also stated that immediately thereafter he visited the place of occurrence at Quarter No.10(A) of Gauhati University campus and found one girl was lying in an injured condition with blood stains in her clothes. A hammer, one Nokia Mobile Phone in broken condition, traces of vomit, one knife, one pair of ladies sandal, one shawl, one bottle of phenyl was also found in the place of occurrence, which were accordingly seized as per law. The injured girl as per the evidence of the Investigating Officer was immediately sent to GMCH for treatment, where she died on the same day. 5. The informant Dhiraj Wary in his deposition as PW-1 had stated that the deceased was his younger sister, who was studying the MA Course in the Gauhati University and had resided in the hostel of the University. On the day of the occurrence, he received a phone call from one Ajit Muchahary, who stated that the mobile phone of the deceased was found in switch off mode and accordingly asked him to enquire about her. When later on he went to the hostel to enquire about her, the people residing there told him to go the police station for further enquiry. After going to the police station, the PW-1 was told that the deceased person was taken to the GMCH and when he reached the hospital, he saw the deadbody of his sister. PW-1 further stated that accordingly on the following day he lodged the ejahar in the Jalukbari Police Station. In the resultant situation, the ejahar filed on 27.01.2010 would have to be considered to be hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C and accordingly we proceed with the matter by considering the GD entry dated 24.01.2010 to be the first information report. 6. PW-2 who is stated to be the Security In-charge of the Gauhati University in his deposition stated that at around 9.30 p.m of 24.01.2010, he was informed by the In-charge over phone that a murder had taken place in one of the residential quarters between Quarter No.1 to 10 and that he should go there. Upon receipt of the information, PW-2 went to the place of occurrence and found that the police had already arrived at Quarter No.10. He stated that he saw the police bringing out a deadbody of a girl from Quarter No.10 and had lifted it to a vehicle. Upon receipt of the information, PW-2 went to the place of occurrence and found that the police had already arrived at Quarter No.10. He stated that he saw the police bringing out a deadbody of a girl from Quarter No.10 and had lifted it to a vehicle. The police then called him inside the Quarter No.10 and showed him a pair of sandal belonging to a woman, one knife, one Nokia Mobile Phone, one Hammer, some traces of vomit and had accordingly seized them. PW-2 had put his signature on the seizure list as a witness. 7. PW-3 who is also an employee of the Gauhati University stated that around 9.30 p.m on the day of occurrence, the Security Officer of the University Ramani Barman had called him over phone and told him that something had happened in Quarter No.10 and asked him to go there. Upon reaching at Quarter No.10, he saw that the police was taking away a deadbody in a vehicle and thereafter in his presence the police recovered and seized a knife fitted to a white plastic handle, a hammer fitted to an iron handle, a Nokia mobile phone, some vomited substance, a pair of silver coloured ladies sandals, one green shawl and one bottle of phenyland that he had also put his signature to the seizure list as a witness. 8. PW-4 Pirjahan Ali, who was one of the person who had taken the accused appellant to the police out post in his deposition stated that he operates a Pan shop in front of the Jalukbari Police Station and on the day of the occurrence, the police had called him to put a signature on some paper, which he accordingly did. In cross examination, the PW-4 denied to have made a statement that on 24.01.2010 when he was going towards Jalukbari on foot, he came across a person on the road, who was shaking all over and that the said person came near him and told him that he had killed a girl and he himself consumed phenyl. PW-4 had stated that the Exhibit-11 statement which contains that the person concerned had told him that he had killed a girl and consumed phenyls was given by him upon being tutored by the police. 9. PW-4 had stated that the Exhibit-11 statement which contains that the person concerned had told him that he had killed a girl and consumed phenyls was given by him upon being tutored by the police. 9. PW-6 Nausad Ali, who happened to be the other person, who had taken the accused appellant to the police out post in his deposition, stated that at the time of the occurrence he was watching news in the TV and came to know that one girl had been killed in the University. After hearing the news, he went to the University Quarter to see as to what had happened and saw that in the meantime the police had already taken away the deadbody. In cross examination, PW-6 denied to have made a statement that the accused person had told him that he had killed a girl and he himself had consumed phenyl. In cross examination upon being re-examined, PW-6 also stated in the same manner as PW-4 and stated that the Exhibit-11 statement containing that the accused appellant had told him that he had killed a girl and consumed phenylwas given upon being tutored by the police. 10. PW-7 Dr. Ritcha Pandey, who had conducted the postmortem examination on the deceased, in her deposition stated that the deceased had the following injuries:- "(1). Contusion of size 7cm x 3cm present on chin in the midline reddish blue in colour. (2) Multiple circular contusion present on the right size of the chest wall apparent of sizes of 2 cm x 1cm to 1.5 cm x 1 cm 5 in number, radish blue in colour. (3) Contusion of size 3 cm x 2cm present on the middle aspect of right arm (under border) 10 cm above the elbow joint reddish black in colour and circular. (4) Contusion of size 1 cm x 0.5 cm present on the back. Right elbow joint circular. (5) Contusion of size 1 cm x 1 cm present on the right forearm over the styoid process of ulna, circular and reddish bluish in colour. (6) Contusion of size 6 cm x 3 cm present on the dorsum of right palm on knuckles of middle finger, reddish blue in colour. Right elbow joint circular. (5) Contusion of size 1 cm x 1 cm present on the right forearm over the styoid process of ulna, circular and reddish bluish in colour. (6) Contusion of size 6 cm x 3 cm present on the dorsum of right palm on knuckles of middle finger, reddish blue in colour. (7) Contusion of size 3 cm x 2 cm (in present on the left styloid process.) (8) Contusion of size 1 cm x 1 cm five in numbers present on the back of left elbow joint adjacent to one another. (9) Contusion of size 2 cm x 1 cm present on the left face 1 cm away from the left eyebrow in the same line. (10) Split laceration of size 2 cm x 1 cm spindle shape present on the left temporal over the scalp, 4 cm above the elbow and 3 cm away form mid-line. (11) Split laceration of size 2 cm x 1 cm present on the result temporal area 7 above the eyebrow and 14 cm away from midline spindle shape. (12) Contusion of size 2 cm x 1 cm on the tip of nose and of sizes of 1.5 cm x 1 cm on both clod of nose, reddish blue in colour. (13) Contusion of size 2 cm x 1 cm present on the right angle of lip and the lower lip. (14) Scraton aberration of size 1 cm x 0.3 cm present in the right side of face, 1 cm away from the angle of mouth and 1 cm below it." 11. Rajeswar Goswami, the Estate Officer of the Gauhati University who was examined as CW-3 in his deposition stated that as per the record of the University, the Quarter No.10(A) was allotted to the accused appellant. 12. DW-1 Dr. Bhupen Narzary, who was a colleague of the accused appellant in his deposition stated that after four months of being allotted with the quarter, he had visited the accused appellant once in his quarter at Quarter No.10(B), but thereafter, had not visited again. 13. DW-2 Sri Samarjeet Basumatary, who claims to be a friend and a fellow student of the accused appellant during their student days had stated that he had visited the accused appellant earlier in his rented premises and then in his official quarter at the University bearing Quarter No.10(B). 14. 13. DW-2 Sri Samarjeet Basumatary, who claims to be a friend and a fellow student of the accused appellant during their student days had stated that he had visited the accused appellant earlier in his rented premises and then in his official quarter at the University bearing Quarter No.10(B). 14. The sketch map prepared by the Investigating Officer shows Quarter No.10(A) and Quarter No.10(B) to be adjacent to each other without there being any gap between the two whereas Quarter No.9 and Quarter No.11 are separated from Quarter No.10(A) and 10(B) and there is a distinct gap between it. Further, the sketch map also shows that the Quarter No.10(B) was found to be closed whereas the Quarter No.10(A) contains the drawing room, kitchen, bedroom and other rooms. The Investigating Officer in his deposition stated that during the investigation, he also prepared the sketch map of the place of occurrence, which included the University Quarter No.10(A) and that Exhibit-8 sketch map was prepared by him. He also stated in his evidence that during the investigation, he had recorded the statement of the witness Nausad Ali wherein he had stated that when he came across the accused appellant, he found him to be trembling and when he went near him, the person concerned had confessed that he had killed one girl and that he had consumed phenyl. In cross examination, the Investigating Officer stated that in the sketch map, out of the two quarters No.10(A) and 10(B), the Quarter No.10(B) was shown as locked. 15. The accused appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C in response to a question as regards the identity of his quarter had stated as follows:- "It is a fact that the above Quarter was allotted to me. However due to bad condition of the quarter, by filing a petition to Secretary GUTA, on 27.07.2009 I have requested for allowing me to use another quarter and my application was recommended to secretary quarter allotment committee. As per verbal order, I have shifted to Quarter No.10B. I stayed in Quarter No.10B till June, 2010." 16. With regard to a question whether he has anything further to say, the accused appellant answered that he would like to adduce evidence by calling the official documents from the Gauhati University. As per verbal order, I have shifted to Quarter No.10B. I stayed in Quarter No.10B till June, 2010." 16. With regard to a question whether he has anything further to say, the accused appellant answered that he would like to adduce evidence by calling the official documents from the Gauhati University. Beyond what has indicated above, the accused appellant had not taken any further stand in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. except for that against the question No.47, the accused appellant stated as follows:- "I am totally innocent. False allegations were leveled against me. Police harassed me a lot. When I went to police station for informing of lying of a dead body in my neighbouring quarter, police kept me sitting in the Police Station and police personals went there. Thereafter on return of police from the place of occurrence, they have searched my body and harassed me. I was mentally broken down. At about 8 pm, I was taken to Ayurvedic Hospital Jalukbari and there from police took me to GMCH and kept there for few days. I cannot say, why I was taken to GMCH. Thereafter I was sent to jail custody." 17. Upon considering the evidence on record as indicated above, it is discernible from the evidence of PW-2 the Security In-charge of Gauhati University that upon being informed about the incident when he went to the place of occurrence, he had seen the police taking out a deadbody from inside the Quarter No.10 of the University, which again is corroborated by the evidence of the Investigating Officer PW-10, who also states that upon reaching the place of occurrence at Quarter No.10(A) of the University, he saw one girl was lying in an injured condition and saw some blood stains in her clothes and thereafter the injured girl was referred and taken to GMCH for treatment. 18. The aforesaid prosecution evidence clearly reveals that the deceased was either in a dead condition or in an injured state in the premises of the Quarter No.10(A) of the Gauhati University. The accused appellant seeks to take a stand in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C as well as by adducing evidence through DW-1 and DW-2 that he was in fact in occupation of Quarter No.10(B) and not 10(A). The accused appellant seeks to take a stand in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C as well as by adducing evidence through DW-1 and DW-2 that he was in fact in occupation of Quarter No.10(B) and not 10(A). But again the said evidence when look from the point of view of the evidence rendered by the Estate Officer of the Gauhati University that the petitioner was allotted Quarter No.10(A) and not 10(B) and the further evidence of the Investigating Officer that the Quarter No.10(B) was found to be closed, whereas the Quarter No.10(A) showed that it was in a livable condition, in the absence of any further evidence, it would be difficult to accept the stand of the accused appellant that he was in fact occupying Quarter No.10(B). When we further look into the evidence of the Investigating Officer as well as the sketch map prepared by him, which was exhibited and proved, Quarter No.10(A) and 10(B) are adjacent to each other without there being any gap in between, which appears in fact to be the same house which may be divided into two parts. Even if it is accepted that the accused appellant was occupying Quarter No.10(B), no explanation is forthcoming as to who was in occupation of Quarter No.10(A) and what had actually happened in Quarter No.10(A), which had resulted in the injuries being caused to the deceased. 19. Further, we have also taken note of that the accused appellant was seen approaching the Jalukbari Police Out post in a physical state where he was shaking and upon being sent for medical examination, CW-2 Dr. Arup Kumar Sarma of Department of Medicine of GMCH deposed that the accused was found in an unconscious state and that positive smell of phenyl and the discharged certificate, which was exhibited and proved showed that he was diagnosed to have been suffering from phenyl poisoning and alkali mixture. Arup Kumar Sarma of Department of Medicine of GMCH deposed that the accused was found in an unconscious state and that positive smell of phenyl and the discharged certificate, which was exhibited and proved showed that he was diagnosed to have been suffering from phenyl poisoning and alkali mixture. We have noticed that the said circumstance that the accused appellant at the time of occurrence was found to have consumed phenyl remained unexplained by him either in defence or in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C which again leads to a situation where the accused appellant is not giving an appropriate explanation as to what had happened to him requiring him to consume phenyl and also what had happened in the residential quarter which he was occupying, where again no stand had been taken that he was not present in the quarter at the time when the alleged occurrence had taken place. 20. Another circumstance taken note of that a bottle of phenyl was also seized from the place of occurrence and the accused appellant was medically found to have been consuming phenyl which again indicates to the possibility of he being present at the place of occurrence. 21. In the resultant situation, we are of the view that the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act would be applicable in the present case where the circumstance in proving as to how the injuries were caused to the deceased are within the special knowledge of the accused appellant and therefore, the burden of proving the fact would be upon him. In the absence of any acceptable and reasonable explanation other than trying to take an evasive stand by stating that he was in occupation of Quarter No.10(B) and not 10(A), where the body was found, which again in fact is located within the same house and adjacent to each other, no explanation is forthcoming from the accused appellant as to how and in what manner the occurrence had taken place. 22. Accordingly, we are of the view that the circumstance as can be carved out from the evidence on record shows that the chain of events is complete to arrive at a conclusion that it is the accused appellant, who would be guilty of committing the offence of causing the injuries, which had resulted in the death of the deceased. 23. Accordingly, we are of the view that the circumstance as can be carved out from the evidence on record shows that the chain of events is complete to arrive at a conclusion that it is the accused appellant, who would be guilty of committing the offence of causing the injuries, which had resulted in the death of the deceased. 23. Having said so, we again look into the injuries that were found on the body of the deceased, which has already been elucidated hereinabove. We find that in total there were 14 injuries on the body of the deceased, out of which the injury No.10 being split laceration of size 2 cm x 1 cm spindle shape present on the left temporal region over the scalp maybe one of the injuries that could have resulted in the death. Again injury No.12 is of a contusion of size 2 cm x 1 cm on the tip of nose and of sizes of 1.5 cm x 1 cm on both the nose, reddish blue in colour and injury No.13, which is a contusion of size 2 cm x 1 cm present on the right angle of the lower lips. But again when we read the cause of death as opined by the doctor, it is noticed that the death was caused due to the combined effect of asphyxia and coma and that the asphyxia resulted from contusion of mouth and nostrils against rigid surface. When we notice the cause of death and compare it with the injuries Nos. 12 and 13, it can be inferred that the asphyxia was caused because of the contusion in the mouth and nostrils and it is an accepted medical phenomena that coma can follow asphyxia. Accordingly, the injuries No.12 and 13 can be attributed to have ultimately resulted in the death of the deceased. But, when we take into account the injuries Nos. 12 and 13, we can form an opinion that it was because of a consequence of injuries No.12 and 13 meaning thereby that causing the two injuries by itself cannot be construed to be an injury done for the purpose of causing death. 24. But, when we take into account the injuries Nos. 12 and 13, we can form an opinion that it was because of a consequence of injuries No.12 and 13 meaning thereby that causing the two injuries by itself cannot be construed to be an injury done for the purpose of causing death. 24. Upon having concluded as above, when we take note of the injuries that were found on the deceased an overall impact thereof can be understood that the 14 injuries had resulted in a hurt which had endangered the life and also by considering the nature of the injuries on the deceased, the sufferer would have been in severe bodily pain for a period of 20 days. Accordingly, we can form an opinion that the injuries found on the deceased can be termed as grievous hurt. Having said so, we are of the view that the accused appellant can be held guilty of offence committed an offence under Section 325 IPC. 25. Accordingly, the conviction of the accused appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 06(six) months is accordingly interfered. Having found the accused appellant guilty of committing an offence under Section 325 IPC, he is accordingly convicted under Section 325 IPC and sentenced to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for 06(six) years by retaining the fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default thereof, further rigorous imprisonment for 06(six) months as imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Kamrup(M). 26. As regards the charge under Section 309 IPC, which was subsequently added by the order dated 17.08.2015, we have taken note of that the accused appellant was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/- for the offence and in default, simple imprisonment for one day. 27. In view of the above as the accused appellant had already undergone an imprisonment for a period of almost 03(three) years 08(eight) months, we are of the view that as even the additional period of one day had already been undergone, no further order is required to be passed. 28. The appeal stands partly allowed by modifying the conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Kamrup(M) in the manner as indicated above. 29. Send back the LCR along with a copy of this judgment immediately.