Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 15 (GAU)

Lakhan Karmakar Golaghat v. State of Assam

2020-01-06

HITESH KUMAR SARMA, SUMAN SHYAM

body2020
JUDGMENT : Suman Shyam, J. 1. Heard Mr. B. Baruah, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant. We have also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State. 2. By the impugned judgment and order dated 11.04.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat in Sessions Case No. 187/2014, the appellant has been found to be guilty of committing the murder of deceased Ranjit Orang and accordingly, he has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- with default clause. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 06.10.2013 at about 8.00 P.M. the appellant and his two brothers, viz. Sri Lambu Karmakar and Sri Siva Karmakar had waylaid the deceased at a narrow lane that leads to Galabil river and had caused grievous injuries by dealing blows on the head of the deceased with a hoe as a result of which, the victim had fainted and fallen down and later on he died, while being taken to Jorhat Medical College Hospital. 4. On 07.10.2013, an ejahar was lodged by the informant Punya Orang with the Officer-in-charge, Kamargaon Police Station, reporting the incident. Based on the F.I.R. dated 07.10.2013, Kamargaon P.S. Case No. 84/2013 was registered against the three accused persons under Sections 341/302/34 IPC. On completion of investigation, police had submitted charge-sheet against all the three accused persons under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. When the accused had pleaded innocence, the matter was sent up for trial. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution side had examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited certain documents but the defence side did not adduce any evidence. 6. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 7. Based on the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court had found the appellant to be guilty of having caused death to the victim Ranjit Orang by giving the blow on his head by means of sharp edge of a hoe and sentenced him to life imprisonment and also imposed fine. However, the two other accused, viz. Lambu Karmakar and Siva Karmakar were acquitted as no convincing evidence was found on record so as to prove the charge brought against them. 8. However, the two other accused, viz. Lambu Karmakar and Siva Karmakar were acquitted as no convincing evidence was found on record so as to prove the charge brought against them. 8. The informant Punya Orang is the brother of deceased Ranjit Orang. Punya Orang, who has been examined by the prosecution as PW-1, had deposed before the Court that on 06.10.2013, the appellant along with his two brothers Lambu Karmakar and Siva Karmakar had confronted the deceased on a narrow lane that leads to Galabil river and over a petty issue and had caused grievous injuries to him by giving blows on his head with a hoe. Later on, the deceased passed away on his way to the hospital. PW-1 has also deposed that his elder brother Ranjit Orang had an altercation with Siva Karmakar near the house of the accused persons whereafter, his brother came to their house, took a knife and went out again. According to the PW-1, he had tried to dissuade the parties from quarrelling but while they were coming back, accused Lakhan Karmakar i.e. the appellant herein, had struck his elder brother with the sharp edged of a hoe as a result of which, the victim had fallen down on the ground. During his cross-examination the defence side could not dislodge the testimony of the PW-1. 9. PW-2, Anup Bhuyan, is a neighbour of the three accused persons and appears to be an eyewitness to the incident. PW-2 has deposed before the Court that on the date of occurrence, while he was sleeping at home, he had heard a commotion that someone had entered Bhanu Karmakar's house which is situated behind his house. According to PW-2, Bhanu Karmakar is a widow and one boy, who stays in the house of Bhanu Karmakar, had informed Siva Karmakar that a person had entered their house. Then Siva Karmakar called PW-2 and as they came out of the house, Siva had told him that the person who had entered Bhanu's house should be caught. Around that time, the victim Ranjit Orang came there on the road and then Siva Karmakar and Lambu Karmakar waylaid Ranjit as a result of which, an altercation broke out between them. Then Siva Karmakar called PW-2 and as they came out of the house, Siva had told him that the person who had entered Bhanu's house should be caught. Around that time, the victim Ranjit Orang came there on the road and then Siva Karmakar and Lambu Karmakar waylaid Ranjit as a result of which, an altercation broke out between them. After that the appellant Lakhan Karmakar had arrived while the altercation was going on with Ranjit Orang and in course thereof, Lakhan Karmakar fetched something from house and struck Ranjit Orang with it. The PW-2 has also stated that later on he had learnt that Lakhan Karmakar had struck Ranjit Orang on his head with a hoe. During his cross-examination, PW-2 has denied the suggestion made by the defence side that he did not witness the incident and that he had falsely deposed to the effect that Siva Karmakar and Lambu Karmakar had an altercation with Ranjit Orang. 10. PW-3, Mongla Komar is the son of Bhanu Karmakar and nephew of the three accused persons. In his testimony, PW-3 has deposed that around the time of the incident, Ranjit Orang had forcibly entered their house and committed rape on his mother Bhanu Karmakar. PW-3 then stated that when he had raised alarm, Ranjit Orang had assaulted him and then he called his maternal uncles i.e. the three accused persons who reside near their house. At that time, the deceased Ranjit had fled the scene. After a short while, Ranjit came to the compound of their house again taking a "dao" along and quarrelled with the accused persons. In course of the quarrel, Ranjit sustained injury in his head and was then taken to the hospital. During his cross-examination, PW-3 has further stated that Ranjit used to disturb his mother and used to enter their house whenever there was none in the house. PW-3 has also stated that his maternal uncles had persuaded Ranjit on several occasions not to do so. 11. One hoe fitted with a bamboo handle, which was used by the appellant for hitting the deceased, was seized by the police by seizure-list Ext-2 after obtaining the signature of witness Kukil Karmakar (PW-7). 12. Post mortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased on 07.10.2013. As per the post mortem report (Ext-3) the following injury were found in the dead body:- "1. 12. Post mortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased on 07.10.2013. As per the post mortem report (Ext-3) the following injury were found in the dead body:- "1. Scalp, Skull, vertebrae: One oval shaped deep incised wound found in frontal region (7 x 3 x 3 cm). There is fracture of right parietal bone." 13. The doctor who had conducted the post mortem viz., Dr. Manjula Hazarika, was examined as PW-4. The doctor has opined that the cause of death of the deceased is due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of head injury sustained by the deceased. 14. Sri Rajesh Karmakar i.e. the PW-6 has deposed that on the day of the occurrence, he had called the accused persons whereupon, they had arrived and assaulted the deceased. It appears that PW-6 is one of the sons of Smt. Bhanu Karmakar (PW-5). 15. The I.O. in this case viz. Sri Dipak Sarma, was examined as PW-8, who has deposed that the inquest on the dead body was conducted by the Executive Magistrate, Smti. Pratima Brahma and Ext-2 is the inquest report. According to the PW-8, he had sent the body for post-mortem examination and thereafter, arrested the accused persons on being shown by the informant and examine the witnesses present therein. PW-8 has also deposed that on being shown by the accused Lakhan Karmakar, he had seized a hoe fitted to a bamboo handle measuring 2 ft. And 1 inch in length from the compound of his house in presence of witness. 16. From the bulk of the evidence brought on record, we find that the prosecution side has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased Ranjit Orang had resulted from the fatal blow given by the appellant Lakhan Karmakar on his head with a hoe. Post-mortem report indicates that there was a single injury on the victim and the account of the eye-witness viz. PW-2 tallies with the nature of injury mentioned in the post mortem report and the opinion rendered by the doctor PW-4. The testimony of PW-2 also finds corroboration from the evidence adduced by the other witnesses. Post-mortem report indicates that there was a single injury on the victim and the account of the eye-witness viz. PW-2 tallies with the nature of injury mentioned in the post mortem report and the opinion rendered by the doctor PW-4. The testimony of PW-2 also finds corroboration from the evidence adduced by the other witnesses. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that it was none other than the appellant who had caused homicidal death to the deceased Ranjit Orang by dealing a fatal blow in his head with a hoe. 17. At this stage, Mr. B. Baruah, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant, has argued that even if the prosecution story is accepted by this Court, even then, this is a clear case where the reaction of the appellant was triggered by grave and sudden provocation by the victim himself and therefore, this is a case which would come under Exception-1 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. 18. As noticed above, we find from the testimony of PW-1 i.e. the informant in this case, that there was an altercation that broke out between the deceased and the accused persons whereafter, the deceased had himself returned to his home to take out a knife. From the testimony of PW-3 it is also apparent that the victim Ranjit Orang had made attempts to commit rape on the sister of the accused persons, viz. Bhanu Karmakar and that is why, a quarrel broke out between the victim and the accused persons. 19. Evidence regarding the circumstances indicating the occurrence of a quarrel and thereafter, the victim himself returning home to come back with a knife have been brought on record by the prosecution witnesses themselves and such evidence, in our opinion, is sufficient to indicate the existence of grave and sudden provocation for the appellant to commit the crime. It would be significant to note herein that from the testimony of PW-2, we find that when the altercation was going on with Ranjit Orang, Lakhan Karmakar had arrived at the scene unarmed but thereafter he took out the hoe from his house and hit Ranjit Orang on his head. 20. As noticed above, it is a case of single injury and the evidence in record indicates complete absence of any pre-meditation on the part of the appellant. 20. As noticed above, it is a case of single injury and the evidence in record indicates complete absence of any pre-meditation on the part of the appellant. If that be so, we are of the view that it is a clear case where the appellant had acted on provocation which appears to be grave and sudden and in a fit of rage, he had inflicted the fatal blow on the head of the deceased with a hoe resulting in his death. We, therefore, find sufficient force in the submission of the learned Amicus Curiae that the present case would fall under Exception-1 of Section 300 of the IPC. 21. For the reasons stated above, we convert the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 IPC to Section 304-Part-II of the IPC and sentence him to undergo imprisonment for 7 (seven) years. The sentence of fine imposed by the learned trial court shall, however, remain unaltered. Needless to mention herein that the period of detention already undergone by the appellant Lakhan Karmakar shall be set off as per provision of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. 22. This appeal stands partly allowed. Send back the LCR.