Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 292 (GAU)

Sanatan Satnami v. State Of Assam

2020-02-27

M.R.PATHAK, NELSON SAILO

body2020
JUDGMENT M. R. Pathak, J. - This appeal from jail is preferred by the accused appellant, namely, Sri Sanatan Satnami being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction dated 14.10.2015 and sentence dated 15.10.2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Sessions Case No. 190/2013, arising out of Tingkhong Police Station Case No. 61/2013, corresponding to GR Case No. 485/2013, whereby he has been convicted under Sections 302/301 IPC for causing murder of his wife Rekha Satnami and for concealing her dead body and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 (six) months for committing the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 (two) years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) month for committing offence under Section 201 IPC , where both the sentences to run concurrently. 2. Heard Ms. Rita Das Mozumdar, learned Amicus Curie, for the appellant and Ms. Bornali Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State, respondent No. 1. None appeared for the respondent No. 2, informant. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that one Sri Madan Satnami on 20.02.2013 lodged an FIR (Exhibit-1) before the Bamunbari Police Outpost Tingkhong Police Station stating that on 14.02.2013 evening said Sanatan Satnami, the accused quarreled with his wife and since the next day onwards she was find missing. When said Sanatan Satnami was enquired about his wife, he informed him that she had gone to visit the house of her daughter and son-in-law and when his daughter and son-in-law was enquired over phone about her, he was informed that she did not visit them. When the matter was enquired in the neighbouring area, it was learnt that said Sanatan Satnami killed his wife in his house and is suspected that he buried the said dead body in a pit in his tea garden and when he came to that it is true, he lodged the FIR. The said FIR, was registered as GD Entry No. 350 dated 20.02.2013 at Bamunbari Out Post and it was forwarded to the Tingkhong Police Station, where it was registered as Tingkhong Police Station Case No. 61/2013 under Sections 302/201 IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 485/2013 against the accused person, appellant herein. 4. The said FIR, was registered as GD Entry No. 350 dated 20.02.2013 at Bamunbari Out Post and it was forwarded to the Tingkhong Police Station, where it was registered as Tingkhong Police Station Case No. 61/2013 under Sections 302/201 IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 485/2013 against the accused person, appellant herein. 4. During investigation of the case, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, drawn its sketch map (Exhibit-6), recorded the statements of the persons acquainted with the facts of the case under Section 161 CrPC , arrested the accused person Sanatan Satnami on 20.02.2013, recovered an axe fitted with bamboo handle whose length is about one cubit and one fist from the house of the accused on 20.02.2013 and seized it, prepared a seizure list in presence of three witnesses (Exhibit-2), after exhuming the dead body of deceased Rekha Satnami on being identified by the accused and others, conducted inquest upon it and prepared the Inquest Report in presence of witnesses (Exhibit-3), transmitted the dead body of said Rekha Satnami to the Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh (AMCH) with the requisite Dead Body Challan (Exhibit-4), obtained the Post Mortem Examination Report of the victim dated 04.03.2013 from the AMCH (Exhibit-5) and on completion of the investigation, finding incriminating materials and prima facie evidence, filed the Charge Sheet in said Tingkhong Police Station Case No. 61/2013 on 06.05.2013 vide No. 87/2013 (Exhibit-6) against the accused appellant, for the offence under Sections 302/201 of the IPC. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh on receipt of the said Charge Sheet (Exhibit-6), forwarded the same to the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar), Dibrugarh for its disposal. Finding the offences triable by the Court of Sessions, learned SDJM (S), Dibrugarh by its order dated 17.06.2013 committed the said G.R. Case No. 485/2013 to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh. 5. On receipt of the case record of said G.R. Case No. 485/2013 it was registered and numbered as Sessions Case No. 190/2013 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge at Dibrugarh under Sections 302/201 IPC. By order dated 01.07.2013 learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh framed charges under Sections 302/201 of the IPC against the accused/appellant, which was read over and explained to him, to which the accused appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the Trial of the case began. By order dated 01.07.2013 learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh framed charges under Sections 302/201 of the IPC against the accused/appellant, which was read over and explained to him, to which the accused appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the Trial of the case began. Learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh by order dated 27.08.2013 transferred the said Sessions Case No. 190/2013 to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh for its disposal. 6. In the trial, the prosecution adduced 7 (seven) witnesses and defence cross examined them. However, the defence did not adduce any evidence. On conclusion of recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Trial Court recorded the statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 CrPC on 29.07.15. After conclusion of the trial, on perusal of evidence on record, the Trial Court came to a finding that the guilt of the accused/appellant under Sections 326/307 IPC have been proved and was accordingly convicted and sentenced as aforesaid, which gave rise to this appeal. 7. Ms. Rita Das Mozumdar learned Amicus Curie for the appellant submitted that the evidence on record adduced by the prosecution discloses many contradictions and that the learned Trial Court on the basis of such evidence came to the conclusion that it is the accused who murdered his wife Rekha Satnami, where there was no eye witness to the incident. She also submitted that the prosecution only on suspicion alleged that it is the accused who killed his wife and concealed her dead body and that the prosecution failed to establish the chain to prove the guilt of the accused while proving the case against the petitioner under circumstantial evidence. Ms. Mozumdar submitted that as the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, therefore, the Court should interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and the accused appellant should be set at liberty. She also stated that the punishment imposed upon the accused by the Trial Court is very much disproportionate. 8. However, Ms. Bornali Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submitted that the prosecution by adducing sufficient evidence proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and that the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgment have rightly convicted and sentenced the accused person of the case. Ms. 8. However, Ms. Bornali Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submitted that the prosecution by adducing sufficient evidence proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and that the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgment have rightly convicted and sentenced the accused person of the case. Ms. Bhuyan in support of the prosecution submitted that that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence does not call for any interference. 9. Let us briefly go through the evidence recorded by the learned Trial Court. 10. PW.1, Madan Satnami, President of the Village Defence Party and informant of the case, deposed before the Court that the accused was working in a house of a Muslim family nearby his house and he came to know that the wife of the accused eloped with someone and five/six days later he came to know that a dead body was recovered from the boundary of his residence and he suspected the same to be the dead body of the wife of the accused, who was missing for some time and so he informed all the members of the village defence party, who came and inspected and thereafter, they informed the incident to Bamunbari Police Station and on getting the information police dug out the dead body and at that time he along with all the VDP members were present and the said dead body was identified by the accused in presence of all of them. The accused told them that his wife took poison and when she died he buried her there. He also deposed that police took the dead body to the Police Station and sent it to the Hospital for Post Mortem Examination. He further stated that he lodged the FIR, Exhibit-1, identified his signature in it and stated that he was also a witness to the Seizure, Exhibit-2, made by police and identified his signature in the seizure list. During his cross examination PW.1 stated that the place of burial is about 50 to 60 meters away from the house of the accused and said place and land, where the dead body was buried, belongs to him (PW.1). During his cross examination PW.1 stated that the place of burial is about 50 to 60 meters away from the house of the accused and said place and land, where the dead body was buried, belongs to him (PW.1). He also stated that regarding eloping of the wife of the accused, he came to know from one Paresh Mura, a resident of No. 2 Dighalia Gaon and that in presence of about 100 to 200 people including the police personnel, when he was asked by police and also threatened, the accused made the confession that his wife consumed poison and that on her death, he buried her there and that his residence is half km away from the place of recovery of dead body. 11. PW.2, Jadu Satnami, a cultivator, deposed that the accused was working as a labour in Bismillah Tea Estate which is about one km from his house and that the accused had a wife who died. He also stated that when police enquired about his wife the accused told them that she is not available, but subsequently, during enquiry, the accused confessed before police that he had buried the dead body of his wife near his house and then the dead body of the deceased was dug out. He deposed that he reached that place when police was digging out the dead body and that he came to know about the whole incident from police. He further deposed that police recovered an axe from the house of the accused and it was seized in which he is a signatory and identified his signature in it. In his cross examination PW.2 stated that he does not know as to why police seized the axe from the possession of the accused person and that he does not know as to how the deceased died. He further stated that he was not present at the time of seizure of the axe and also does not know on what matter police interrogated the accused person. 12. He further stated that he was not present at the time of seizure of the axe and also does not know on what matter police interrogated the accused person. 12. PW.3, Sri Magaj @ Majila Satnami, a daily wage earner, deposed before the Court that he is not aware of the incident and that while he was working as a labour in the tea garden one of his co-worker informed him that one person had died and all of them rushed to the place of occurrence to see the dead body, but he did not go there and returned to his house, which is about one km away from the house of the accused. The defence declined to cross examine the said PW.3. 13. PW.4, Shib Charan Satnami, is another seizure witness who is also a hearsay witness deposed that Surajmani Patnayak died. During his cross examination he stated that police did not record his statement and took his signature in a blank paper and that he resides separately from the accused. 14. PW.5, Abdul Rahman, a business man, deposed that he knows the informant who hails from the same village and also knows the accused and knew Smti. Bina Satnami. He also deposed that he owns a Tea Garden, namely, Bismillah Tea Estate where the accused and his wife were employed and his mohori (clerk) Sunil Singh informed him that the wife of the accused Sanatan is missing from his house since two days and on hearing it, he asked him to search for the wife of the accused, to which he replied that it is the accused who killed his wife. Then after two days of meeting, he went to the house of the accused and on his query he told him that his wife had gone to the house of his married daughter. Then his mohori Sunil told him that Sanatan had killed his wife and dumped her in an old well in Satnami Gaon and thereafter said PW.5 called Jadu (PW.2) and Madan Satnami (PW.1) of his village and enquired the matter with those people who also supported the views expressed by his mohori, Sunil and told that Sanatan had killed his wife and dumped the dead body in the said village. Thereafter, he along with Sunil Singh, Madan and Jadu discussed amongst them and came to a decision that it would be better to inform police and accordingly, Madan Satnami lodged the FIR before Bamunbari Out Post and on the next day police came and started the investigation. PW.5 also deposed that police came, investigated the matter, made queries with the accused and then roped him. He also deposed that he came to the place where the dead body of the deceased was dumped and found the accused present in that place and as police asked him to provide labourers to dig out the dead body and he replied to them that police should ask the culprit to dug out the dead body and at that stage as per instruction of police he asked the accused as to why he had killed his wife to which he replied that she ill treated him and then the accused dug out the dead body, which was found about ten cubit away from the house of the accused. Police made inquest over the dead body, prepare the inquest report, Exhibit-3, to which he was one of the witnesses and identified his signature in it. He deposed that during the investigation of police, the accused confessed that he had killed his wife near the place where the dead body was found in presence of large numbers of people and that the accused also confessed it in the police station. During his cross examination PW.5 stated that he does not know where the deceased had gone and that he along with others suspected that the accused had murdered her. 15. PW.6, Dr. Nayan Moni Pathak, the autopsy doctor who conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of Rekha Satnami, a female of 39 years, during post mortem examination on 20.02.2013 found the following- A female body in advance stage of decomposition wrapped in a plastic sheet, wearing garment and the body was soiled with dry soil and sand, and scalp hair came out easily on plucking and was partially missing. He found the following injuries on the person of the deceased during post mortem examination - i) Contusion of size 6 x 4 cm seen over left buttock. ii) Contusion of size 3 x 2 cm over anterior aspect of left leg 5 cm below the knee. He found the following injuries on the person of the deceased during post mortem examination - i) Contusion of size 6 x 4 cm seen over left buttock. ii) Contusion of size 3 x 2 cm over anterior aspect of left leg 5 cm below the knee. iii) Contusion of scalp size 6 x 4 cm over fronto parietal area, observed on dissection. iv) Liner fracture of length 5 cm over left parietal bone placed obliquely near temporal parietal suture. Brain, Membrane found to be decomposed. Liver, spleen, kidney found to be decomposed. Semi solid mass was retained in the architecture. Other viscera were found to be decomposed. The said autopsy doctor, PW.6 opined that the death of the deceased was due to head injuries sustained by her and all the injuries were anti mortem caused by blunt impact and the time since death of the deceased was approximately 5 to 7 days and that Exhibit-5 is the post mortem report of the deceased, which was proved by the said doctor including his signature on it. Defence did not cross examine said autopsy doctor, PW.6. 16. PW.7, Sri Mohan Sena Sinha, Sub-Inspector of Police, who was the in-charge of Bamunbari Police Out Post under Tingkhong Police Station deposed before the Court that on 19.02.2013 one Madan Satnami (PW.1) verbally informed that on 14.02.2013 Sanatan Satnami (the accused) of No. 2 Dighalia Gaon had quarreled with his wife and since the next day she was found missing and when the informant asked said Sanatan about her, he replied that she went to the house of their daughter and when the said informant called upon the house of the daughter of said Sanatan, he came to know that Sanatans wife was not in her daughters house and from then onwards the informant searched for the wife of Sanatan in nearby places and came to know that the accused had killed his wife and buried her nearby informants tea estate. PW.7 also deposed that the said information in Bamunbari Out Post was entered as GD Entry No. 341 dated 19.02.2013 and that he has also entered GD Entry vide No. Bamunbari OP GDE No. 350 dated 20.02.2013 and forwarded it to the Officer-in-Charge of Tingkhong Police Station for registering a case, where Exhibit-1 is the said GD Entry wherein the PW.7 identified his signature. PW.7 further deposed that prior to the lodging of the FIR, the informant verbally informed Bamunbari Out Post about the missing of wife of the accused Sanatan and the same was entered as GD Entry No. 341 dated 19.02.2013, then he went to the place of occurrence, drawn the sketch map of the place of occurrence, arranged Police Constable to dug the place where the dead body of the accused was suspected to have been buried and as it was dark by that time, they came back on the next day around 07:00 in the morning, in presence of the Circle Officer, the dead body was exhumed, inquest over the dead body was made and that the entire incident was videographed. Said PW.7 further deposed that he seized an axe from the house of the accused, prepared the Seizure List Exhibit-3, arrested the accused from his house on 20.02.2013 and recorded the statement of the witnesses in the place of occurrence on 20.02.2013, sent the dead body of the deceased to AMCH, Dibrugarh for its post mortem examination. PW.7 deposed that the informant Madan Satnami stated before him that his tea estate is within a distance of five meters from the courtyard of the accused Sanatan where there was bamboo bush and ditch covered with garbage, as such he suspected the accused Sanatan and accordingly informed police. PW.7 added that after completion of the investigation finding sufficient material against the accused person he submitted the charge sheet (Exhibit-6) in the case along with the video and the CD. During his cross examination, PW.7 stated that he recorded the statements of about 20 persons and nobody stated that the accused committed the murder of the deceased and that the tea garden from where the dead body was recovered belonged to one Abdul Rahman and there were several houses about hundred meters away from the place where the dead body was recovered. 17. Medical evidence of the victim proved by the autopsy doctor PW.6 and the relevant post mortem examination of the deceased, Exhibit-5 goes to show that the death of the deceased was due to head injuries sustained by her and all the injuries were anti mortem in nature caused by blunt impact, but the opinion of the doctor is silent regarding the death of the victim whether it is homicidal or not. From the perusal of the evidence recorded by the trial Court it can be seen that there is no eye witness to the incident of committing murder of the victim Rekha Satnami. It is also seen that PW.1, Madan Satnami, the informant as well as the President of the Village Defence Party deposed that the accused told them that his wife took poison and when she died he buried her in the place where from she was dug out. In his cross examination said PW.1 stated that when the accused was asked by police and also threatened, the accused in presence of about 100 to 200 people including the police personnel, confessed that his wife consumed poison and that on her death, he buried her in the place from where she was recovered. 18. PW.2, Jadu Satnami stated that when police enquired about his wife the accused told them that she is not available, but subsequently, during enquiry, the accused confessed before police that he buried the dead body of his wife near his house and then the dead body of the deceased was dug out. 19. Further PW.5, Abdul Rahman, a business man, and the owner of the Bismillah Tea Estate in which both the accused and the deceased use to work, the tea estate from where the dead body of the victim Rekha Satnami was exhumed, stated that after lodging of the FIR of the case police came, investigated the matter, made queries with the accused and then roped him. He further stated that as per instruction of police when he asked the accused as to why he had killed his wife, the accused replied that as she was ill treating him he killed her. Said PW.5 further deposed that during investigation of the case, the accused confessed that he had killed his wife near the place where the dead body was found in presence of large number of people and also confessed it in the police station. 20. But the PW.7, Investigating Officer of the case in his evidence did not corroborate those statements of PWs. 1, 2 and 5 and rather in his cross examination by the defence said PW.7 stated that while recording the statements of about 20 persons, nobody stated that it is the accused who committed the murder of the deceased. 20. But the PW.7, Investigating Officer of the case in his evidence did not corroborate those statements of PWs. 1, 2 and 5 and rather in his cross examination by the defence said PW.7 stated that while recording the statements of about 20 persons, nobody stated that it is the accused who committed the murder of the deceased. Again on scrutiny of the evidence of said Investigating Officer of the case it can be seen that there is no mention of the accused that he confessed of committing the crime and that only on the statement and the FIR of Madan Satnami (PW.1), investigation of the case was done and later body of the deceased was recovered. From the above it is seen that the evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 5 are reliable to prove the guilt of the accused. 21. It is seen that the prosecution did not examine the daughter and son-in-law of the accused, whose names were mentioned by the PW.1, informant of the case, Madan Satnami. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution it is seen that the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the tea estate of PW.5, Abdul Rahman, near to the hose of the accused, the tea estate in which both the accused and the deceased used to work. The said recovery of the dead body of the deceased was not on any confessional statement of the accused, but purely on suspicion. 22. From the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 CrPC, it can be seen that though he gave some answers, but solely on the basis of such Section 313 CrPC statement, an accused cannot be convicted unless there are some corroborating evidence led by the prosecution to that extent and merely on the ground of suspicion, an accused cannot be convicted. 23. In the present case, we have seen that the prosecution totally failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt of committing murder of his wife Rekha Satnami and in concealing her dead body. As such, we are of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 24. Accordingly, we set aside and quash the impugned judgment of conviction dated 14.10.2015 and sentences dated 15.10.2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Sessions Case No. 190/2013, against the accused appellant. 25. As such, we are of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 24. Accordingly, we set aside and quash the impugned judgment of conviction dated 14.10.2015 and sentences dated 15.10.2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Sessions Case No. 190/2013, against the accused appellant. 25. The accused appellant, namely, Sri Sanatan Satnami is relieved from the charges levelled against him in said Sessions Case No. 190/2013 arising out of Tingkhong Police Station Case No. 61/2013, corresponding to GR Case No. 485/2013 and accordingly acquitted of the charges framed against him in it and set him at liberty forthwith. 26. The Superintendent as well as the Jailor of the Central Jail, Dibrugarh are directed to release the accused appellant Sri Sanatan Satnami forthwith, if he is not required in any other case and/or if there is no other hindrance in it. 27. Registry shall return the records of the Sessions Case No. 190/2013 to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh forthwith along with a copy of this judgment. 28. Before parting with the case, we appreciate the assistance rendered by both, the learned amicus curiae as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in adjudicating the matter. The State Legal Services Authority, Assam, Guwahati shall pay a sum of Rs. 7,500/- as remuneration to Ms. Rita Das Mozumdar, learned amicus curiae of the case.