Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 576 (GAU)

Komyor Bame v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

2020-06-18

SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

body2020
JUDGMENT Songkhupchung Serto, J. - Heard Mr. Bomchi Taipodia, learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Addl. P.P. for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This is a joint application under section 482 of Cr. P.C filed by the accused, the complainant and the victim praying for quashing and setting aside of the Charge-sheet No. 26/2019 under section 304/324 of IPC submitted against the petitioner No.1 in connection with Likabali P.S Case No. 05/2019. 3. On 03.01.2019, the petitioner No. 2 who is the father of the petitioner No.3 lodged a complaint to the Officer-in-charge, Likabali P.S stating that around 09:15 P.M on 02.01.2019 Sri. Komyor Bame (accused/petitioner No.1) was heard making a loud noise at his own residence, and hearing the noise his son Sri. Yomto Dini (the petitioner No.3/the victim) went to the residence of Mr. Komyor Bame. On reaching the residence of Mr. Komyor Bame, Mr. Yomto Dini (the petitioner No.3/the victim) asked the former as to why he was making noise. At this, Mr. Komyor Bame (the petitioner No.1/the accused) got angry and pick up a dao which was lying nearby and gave a blow on the face of Mr. Yomto Dini which caused grievous injuries. Therefore, necessary action may be taken. On received of the complaint, the Likabli P.S registered the FIR Case No. 05/2019, under section 307/324 of IPC. During the investigation, the petitioner No. 3, who was the victim was taken to the Dhemaji Civil Hospital where the Doctor examined him and found that his injury was simple and it was caused with a sharp weapon. After the investigation was completed, the P.S submitted the chargesheet to the learned CJM, West Siang district and the learned CJM took cognizance and committed the same to the learned Session Judge, Aalo, West Siang. The learned Session Judge after receiving the charge-sheet fixed the matter for charge consideration but hearing could not take place due to the situation arising out of the spread of COVID-19 pandemic. While the case is pending at that stage the petitioners have come before this Court praying as stated above. 4. In the charge-sheet, the prosecution story is that on 03.01.2019 at about 10:45 hrs. a written complaint was received from Sri. Tayon Dini (the petitioner No.2 -father of the petitioner No.3) stating that at around 9:15 P.M on 02.01.2019, Sri. While the case is pending at that stage the petitioners have come before this Court praying as stated above. 4. In the charge-sheet, the prosecution story is that on 03.01.2019 at about 10:45 hrs. a written complaint was received from Sri. Tayon Dini (the petitioner No.2 -father of the petitioner No.3) stating that at around 9:15 P.M on 02.01.2019, Sri. Komyor Bame (petitioner No.1) was heard making a loud noise and on hearing the same Sri. Yomto Dini (petitioner No.3/the victim) went and asked him why he was making such noise. On being ask such question, Sri. Komyor Bame (petitioner No.1) got angry and pick up a dao which was lying nearby and gave a blow on the face of Sri. Yomto Dini (petitioner No.3). During the course of investigation, the place of occurrence was visited and sketch map of the same was drawn and, several witnesses were examined and also the crime weapon was seized from the house of the accused (the petitioner No.1) and at the same time he was arrested. And, the investigation revealed that the victim, Sri. Yomto Dini (petitioner No.3) had created nuisance in the house of the accused, Sri. Komyor Bame (petitioner No.1) who visited the house with his wife twice on that day and while creating such nuisance he had an argument with Sri. Tai Nyodu and, following the argument he also assaulted Sri. Tai Nyodu. Seeing the petitioner No.3 assaulting Mr. Tai Nyodu, the accused (petitioner No.1) pick up a dao which was lying nearby and gave a blow on the petitioner No.3, and as a result of the same the petitioner No.3 suffered serious injury. Therefore, strong prima facie case under section 307/324 of IPC is well established. As such, the accused (the petitioner No.1) should be tried for the offence he committed. 5. Mr. B. Taipodia, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are relatives and they are immediate neighbours in their village and, they have no any enmity between them at any time. The learned counsel also submitted that the incident happened while a celebration was going on in the house of the accused (the petitioner No. 1) and when the accused and the victim were drunk. The learned counsel also submitted that the incident happened while a celebration was going on in the house of the accused (the petitioner No. 1) and when the accused and the victim were drunk. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the injury was caused without any intention on the part of the accused and it so happen while trying to intervene a fight between the victim and another guest. Therefore, section 307 of IPC is not attracted in this case. wxyz Mr. Taipodia further submitted that the injury caused on the face of the victim (the petitioner No.3) was simple as per the medical finding. Therefore, it can be concluded that the injury was not caused in an attempt to murder the victim. Furthermore, the learned counsel submitted that the complainant, the victim and the accused had already compromised and settled the matter amicably, therefore, even if the case is tried it would amount only to abuse of the process of the Court. zyxw 6. Mr. T. Ete, learned Addl. P.P. submitted that after the FIR was registered, the complainant (the petitioner No.2 in this case) had submitted an application on 01.02.2019 to the Officer-in-charge of Likabli P.S requesting him to allow him to withdraw the FIR. Therefore, it appears that the complainant and the victim are no longer interested in pursuing the case. wxyz It is also submitted by the learned Addl. P.P that from the facts and circumstance which can be gathered from the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C, it appears that the injury on the face of the petitioner No.3 (the victim) was caused by the petitioner No.1 (the accused) accidentally and not intentionally. Therefore, the offence under section 307 of IPC is not likely to be attracted. Lastly, the learned Addl. P.P submitted that, since the parties have compromised, the trial is not likely to bare any fruit, therefore, he has no objection in allowing the joint petition. zyxw 7. Considering the facts and circumstances stated in the case record, it appears that the complainant, the victim and the accused who are joint petitioners in this petition are immediate neighbours and are also close relatives. Further, it also appears that the incident occurred during the time when the victim and the accused were drunk. zyxw 7. Considering the facts and circumstances stated in the case record, it appears that the complainant, the victim and the accused who are joint petitioners in this petition are immediate neighbours and are also close relatives. Further, it also appears that the incident occurred during the time when the victim and the accused were drunk. From all these facts one can safely conclude that there was no premeditation or intention on the part of the petitioner No. 1 (the accused) to cause the injury suffered by the petitioner No. 3 (the victim). Furthermore, it appears from the application of the petitioner No.2 (the complainant) submitted before the Officer-in-charge of P.S concerned requesting him to allow him to withdraw the FIR, and also from the fact that the parties have reached a compromise settlement that, no one is interested in pursuing the case any longer and the prosecution even if it is taken up would be a lame one. As such, it would be in nobody''s interest to keep the case alive. Rather by keeping the case alive the good relationship which existed between the parties before and after the incident may become strained. wxyz Keeping in view what has been stated above, I am of the view that the prayer of the petitioners to quash the charge-sheet of the FIR case can be allowed, as prayed for. zyxw wxyz Accordingly, the prayer is allowed and the charge-sheet No. 26/2019, dated 23.09.2019 corresponding to FIR Case of Likabali P.S Case No. 05/2019 now pending for charge consideration before the learned Sessions Judge, Aalo, West Siang district is quashed and set aside. zyxw wxyz This Criminal petition is disposed. zyxw