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

2013 Supreme(Gau) 436

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Iqbal Ahmed Ansari and Indira Shah, JJ.
Sri Bircha Kurmi
Vs.
State of Assam
Criminal Appeal (J) No. 57/2009
Decided On: 02.08.2013

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. R. Adhikary
For Respondents/Defendant: Mr. H. Sharma, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam

Headnote:

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Evidence Act - Section 165 - Criminal Trial –Offence of Murder – Appeal against conviction - Over the land of accused, there are as many as three shops - One of these shops is a shop for selling clothes, which is run by the accused; whereas another shop, which used to sell hardware materials, was, at relevant point of time, being run by deceased in partnership with wife, (PW5), and elder sister of said deceased - Though there was apparently no discord and dispute between accused, on one hand, and deceased, on other, accused, came to the said hardware shop holding an axe in his hand and assaulted deceased, by means of said axe, over head and other parts of his body - When deceased elder sister, (PW2), tried to stop accused, accused chased her by holding axe in his hand with a view to assault her - The accused reacted in the similar manner, when others tried to stop him - On coming to know from, a co-villager, on phone, that Bircha Kurmi was moving around with an axe in his hand and had already killed deceased village headman, informed, over telephone, Police Station – Held, It is duty of Judge to remove such obscurity or incompleteness by putting appropriate question - In such a case, it is, rather, duty of Judge, conducting the trial, to elicit from the witness complete information so that the evidence given by him or her becomes clear and intelligible, though his putting of questions cannot be in a manner as if the witness is under cross-examination nor can such examination be aimed at destroying or diluting effect of cross-examination of witness by defence - It is for this reason that a Court shall not put, in exercise of its powers under Section 165, leading question or put words into mouth of witness – Therefore one cannot ignore fact and we must point out that conviction of accused-appellant, without bringing the contents of General Diary Entry as well as evidence of Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, were serious infirmities in trial and, in face of such infirmities, conviction of accused-appellant cannot be sustained - Appeal disposed of.

JUDGMENT

Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, J.

1. By judgment and order, dated 05.06.2009, passed, in Sessions Case No. 178(M) of 2008, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, FTC, Tinsukia, the accused-appellant, Bircha Kurmi, stands convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The case of the prosecution may, in brief, be described as under:

(i) Over the land of accused, Bircha Kurmi, there are as many as three shops. One of these shops is a shop for selling clothes, which is run by the accused; whereas another shop, which used to sell hardware materials, was, at the relevant point of time, being run by the deceased Tralokya Saikia in partnership with Bircha Kurmi's wife, Sabitri Kurmi (PW5), and Anjana Saikia, elder sister of the said deceased. Though there was apparently no discord and dispute between accused Bircha Kurmi, on the one hand, and Tralokya, on the other, the accused, on 02.08.2008, at about 8 am, came to the said hardware shop holding an axe in his hand and assaulted Tralokya, by means of the said axe, over the head and other parts of his body. When Tralokya's elder sister, Anjana Saikia (PW2), tried to stop the accused, the accused chased her by holding the axe in his hand with a view to assault her. The accused reacted in the similar manner, when others tried to stop him. On coming to know from Apurba Saikia, a co-villager, on phone, that Bircha Kurmi was moving around with an axe in his hand and had already killed Tralokya Saikia, Krishna Mahato, the village headman, informed, over telephone, the Officer-in-Charge, Digboi Police Station, and police accordingly came to the place of occurrence and, having found Tralokya Saikia's dead body lying near his said hardware shop, held inquest over the said dead body, which was also subjected to post mortem examination.

(ii) During investigation, police apprehended the accused, while he was still carrying the axe in his hand and the said axe was seized by Seizure List (Ext. 4), Mat. Ext. 1 being the seized axe. Later on, an Ejahar was formally lodged by Anjan Saikia (PW1), brother of the said deceased Tralokya, at Digboi Police Station and, treating the said Ejahar as First Information Report (in short, FIR), Digboi Police Station Case No. 107/2008, under Section 302 IPC, was registered against the accused. On completion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet, under Section 302 IPC, against the accused.

2. At the trial, when a charge, under Section 302, was framed against the accused, he pleaded not guilty thereto.

3. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 12 (fourteen) witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.PC and, in his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offence, which was alleged to have been committed by him, his case being that of denial. No evidence was adduced by the defence.

4. Having, however, found the accused guilty of the offence, which he stood charged with, the learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentence against him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence passed against him, the accused, as a convicted person, has preferred this appeal.

5. We have heard Mr. R. Adhikary, learned counsel, as amicus curiae, and Mr. H. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

6. While considering the present appeal, it may be noted, at the very outset, that it has not been in dispute that the doctor (PW10) was the one, who had, on 02.08.2008, performed post mortem examination on the dead body of Tralokya Saikia and found as follows:

External appearance: Male dead body, average built, wearing pink gray sporting, black track suit and blue underwear. Rigor mortis present.

Injuries: (1) Deep sharp cut injury over right upper part of the neck 6" in length and deep cutting muscles, vessels and part of
























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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top