Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 826 (GAU)

Sanatan Paul v. State of Assam

2019-07-15

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, AJIT BORTHAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. 1. Heard Mr. RM Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M. Phukan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State of Assam. 2. By the order dated 26.06.2019, it was accepted that service on informant/respondent No. 2 has been duly served. Inspite of such service, none appears. 3. An ejahar dated 11.03.2011 was lodged by Joydev Sutradhar alleging inter alia that on 07.03.2011 at about 4 P.M. her sister was kicked by her husband inside the house as a result of which she fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Later on, the father-in-law of his sister and her husband admitted the deceased in the Barpeta Road Hospital and subsequently she was referred to the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital at Guwahati. 4. Amongst the various witnesses, who had deposed on behalf of the prosecution, the PW-1, Joydev Sutradhar the informant stated that he was informed by the village people that his sister had died in the house of the accused. Upon getting the information, the PW-1 went to the house of the accused and found the dead body of his sister. He deposed that on being enquired, the people assembled there told him that the accused had caused the death of his sister by assaulting her and the village people had also detained the accused after the occurrence. He also deposed that he came to know from the neighbouring people that the accused used to physically and mentally harass his sister on the slightest pretext. In cross, PW-1 stated that he cannot recollect as to who had written the FIR, although the FIR is written on his own name. 5. PW-6, Prahlad Sutradhar in his deposition stated that on the day of the occurrence at around 11 AM, the accused came to his house in a drunken condition and had assaulted his wife badly and had dragged her outside the house by pulling her hairs. He deposed that at that moment he was working in his factory. In cross, he stated that the plywood factory where he works was located in the front side of the house of the accused. He deposed that at that moment he was working in his factory. In cross, he stated that the plywood factory where he works was located in the front side of the house of the accused. He also deposed that at the time of the occurrence, the baby of the accused person was also sleeping on the bed and the accused had thrown the baby in the cabbage cultivation field, but somehow the baby was retrieved and saved by others. 6. PW-2, the Doctor, who had conducted the post mortem examination in his deposition has stated that the following injuries were found on the deceased: "Scalp: On dissection contusion of size 5 x 5 cm is present right parieto-temporal bone. Contusion of size 8 x 5 cm is present over left fronto-parietal bone. Membrane: Diffuse subdural haemorrhage is present over right cerebral hemisphere. Brain: congested." The Doctor further opined that the death was caused due to coma as a result of head injury described above and that all the injuries were ante-mortem and were caused by blunt force impact. 7. The evidence of other prosecution witnesses are not found to be relevant for determining as to whether the accused alone had caused the injuries on the deceased which had led to her death. 8. PW-6 in his deposition and cross had stated that at the time of occurrence, he was working in the factory which was located within the courtyard of the accused person and he had seen the accused person going inside the house at around 11 A.M., in a drunken condition and had badly assaulted the deceased. The said evidence when looked from the point of view of the medical evidence, we notice that the deceased had sustained two contusion injuries on the right parietotemporal bone and on the left frontoparietal bone and the opinion of the Doctor was that the injuries were caused by a blunt force impact. If we take into consideration the eye witness account of PW-6 and the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased and accept that such injuries were caused by the accused alone, we can form an opinion that the accused did not have the intention to cause death of the deceased. If we take into consideration the eye witness account of PW-6 and the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased and accept that such injuries were caused by the accused alone, we can form an opinion that the accused did not have the intention to cause death of the deceased. A further mitigating circumstance that is found is that the accused and the deceased used to quarrel frequently which again shows the existence of some kind of provocation in favour of the accused. 9. Taking all the aspects into consideration, we are of the view that the appellant would be guilty of committing an offence under Section 302 Part II of the IPC. It is stated that the accused had been in custody since 11.03.2011 and as such he had already spent more than 8 years in custody and accordingly we sentence the accused for the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. 10. In view of the above, the accused appellant be released from custody, provided he is not required in connection with any other case. 11. Appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 12. Before parting with the record, we appreciate the valuable service rendered by Mr. RM Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae. Accordingly, it is directed that an amount of Rs. 7,500/- as legal fees be paid to him by the High Court Legal Service Committee upon production of a copy of this judgment and order. 13. Send back the LCR.