SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1971 Supreme(Gau) 44

ASSAM AND NAGALAND HIGH COURT
D.M Sen , M.C. Patha, JJ.
STATE OF ASSAM
VERSUS
BHABANANDA SARMA AND OTHERS
Govt. Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1968 (Against order of B. N. Sharma, S.J., L.A.D. at Gauhati,
Decided on : 24-7-1968, November 24, 1971.

The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons are guilty of the charges against them. The accused persons have a right to self-defense and they cannot be convicted if they have not exceeded the right of private defense.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL APPEAL - [SECTION 302/34 AND 323/34, INDIAN PENAL CODE] - [ACQUITTAL] - [BENEFIT OF DOUBT] - [EYE WITNESSES] - [MEDICAL EVIDENCE] - [RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE] - [INTENTION] - [CONVICTION] - [LIFE IMPRISONMENT] - The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons were guilty of murder and causing simple injuries to the victims. The High Court allowed the appeal and convicted the accused persons under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

Fact of the Case:

The three accused persons were charged under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly chasing and assaulting the deceased and his brother with weapons, resulting in the deceased's death and injuries to his brother. The Sessions Court acquitted the accused persons on the benefit of doubt.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons were guilty of the charges against them. The Court noted that the evidence of the eye witnesses was not reliable and that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's case. The Court also found that the accused persons had acted in self-defense and that they had not exceeded the right of private defense.

Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons were guilty of murder and causing simple injuries to the victims? 2. Whether the accused persons had acted in self-defense and whether they had exceeded the right of private defense?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons were guilty of the charges against them. The Court noted that the evidence of the eye witnesses was not reliable and that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's case. 2. The Court also found that the accused persons had acted in self-defense and that they had not exceeded the right of private defense.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal and convicted the accused persons under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

JUDGMENT

M. C. Pathak, J. :- The three respondents - (1) Bhabananda Sarma, (2) Phanidhar Sarma and (3) Harendra Nath Sarma; who are brothers, were charged under Ss. 302/34 and 323/34, Indian Penal Code and tried by the learned Sessions Judge, L.A.D., Gauhati. On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 24-7-68, acquitted the Respondents on benefit of doubt and the present Government Criminal appeal is directed against this order of acquittal.

2. The prosecution case may be briefly stated : On 10-11-67, at about 7 a.m. in the morning. Sashi Mohan Sarma (deceased) was proceeding to their field with some mustard seeds in a 'Kharahi' (basket) for sowing in the field. His elder brother Gopinath Sarma was also going with him taking some cattle to be tethered in the field. They proceeded together about half a furlong from their house by the village path when Gopinath with the cattle left the path and proceeded to nearby field for tethering the cattle and Sashi Mohan proceeded along the path towards their field where their ploughmen were working. In the meantime, the three accused persons, namely (1) Bhabananda Sarma, (2) Phanidhar Sarma and (3) Harendra Nath Sarma chased Sashimohan with weapons in their hands. Bhabananda had a lathi in his hand, Phanidhar had a 'dalibari' (a wooden hammer with a long handle for breaking clods of earth) and Harendra had an iron rod in his hand. Having been so chased by the accused persons. Sashimohan ran toward his brother Gopinath raising alarm all the way.

As soon as Sashimohan being chased reached the field of one Mohodar near which Gopinath was going to tether his cattle, accused Bhabananda caught hold of Sashimohan by both of his hands from behind and then accused Phanidhar gave him a blow on his head with the 'dalibari', as a result of which Sashimohan fell down. Thereafter, accused Harendra also struck Sashimohan on his head and other parts of his body with the iron rod. Having seen his brother being so assaulted. Gopinath rushed to the place of occurrence with a view to intervene. At this, accused Bhabananda caught hold of Gopinath also and then accused Harendra gave him some blows with the iron rod causing injuries. In the mean time, hearing the 'hulla' some persons rushed towards the place of occurrence and on seeing them, the accused persons ran towards their house carrying the weapons with them.

Sashimohan was very seriously injured and was lying unconscious in the field. The persons who assembled there carried Sashimohan home. Umakanta Sarma, one of the brothers of Sashimohan, who was in his house at that time, on hearing the occurrence from his brother Gopinath, proceeded to Barpeta Police Station and lodged an ejahar. Both the injured persons were taken to the Barpeta Civil Hospital where they were examined and were given medical aid. Sashimohan, however, died on the following night in the hospital. Police registered a case and on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the three accused persons under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The learned committing Magistrate charged the accused persons under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 Indian Penal Code and committed them to be tried in the Sessions Court. Before the Sessions Court also, the accused were charged under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 Indian Penal Code.

4. The defence of accused Phanidhar and Harendra was that of denial and alibi and the defence of accused Bhabananda was that of exercise of right of private defence of person. Accused Bhabananda in his statement under Section 342 Criminal Procedure Code stated that on the day of occurrence. Gopinath and Sashimohan chased him while he was going to tether cattle and gave blows on his back. As he shouted for help, some people came. Being helpless, he picked up a 'dalibari' lying nearby and brandished it around and he did not know on whose person it struck. According to Bhabananda, the other


























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top