Back
2009 Supreme(Gau) 13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
AFTAB H. SAIKIA AND ARUN CHANDRA UPADHYAY, JJ.
Prem Orang – Appellant
Vs.
State of Assam – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 27 (J) of 2003
Decided On: 07.01.2009
Advocate Appeared
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: A. Devi, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: Z. Kamar, Adv.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of mitigating circumstances and the emotional state of the accused in determining the appropriate conviction and sentence.
Headnote:
Section 302 IPC - Conviction and Sentence - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 302 IPC - Summary: The court discussed the evidence and witness testimonies to determine the guilt of the accused under Section 302 IPC. It also considered the mitigating circumstances and the accused's emotional state at the time of the offense. The court ultimately convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for causing grievous injuries to the deceased, leading to his death. The prosecution presented evidence and witness testimonies to prove the guilt of the accused. The court considered the circumstances of the case, including the emotional state of the accused, and ultimately convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part-I IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty under Section 304 Part-I IPC based on the evidence and witness testimonies presented by the prosecution. It considered the mitigating circumstances and the emotional state of the accused at the time of the offense.
Issues: The main issue was to determine the guilt of the accused under Section 302 IPC based on the evidence and witness testimonies presented by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the evidence, witness testimonies, and the emotional state of the accused to arrive at the decision to convict the appellant under Section 304 Part-I IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
Final Decision: The court convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment.
A.C. Upadhyay, J.
1. This jail appeal is directed against the order of conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000, in default, rigorous imprisonment for three months, imposed on the accused/Appellant by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Sonitpur, Tezpur, in Sessions Case No. 101 (S)/2002.
2. We have heard Smti. A. Devi, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused/Appellant and Mr. Z. Kamar, learned PP, Assam, representing the State.
3. The prosecution story in brief, may be summarized as follows:
On 11.11.2001, at about 8 P.M. while deceased Bhagan Mura and his friend P.W. 5, Gangaram Rajowar were sitting in the house of P.W. 4, Newa Chand Ghatowar, accused Prem Orang, armed with a 'dao' (a sharp cutting weapon about 17 inches in length with a wooden handle) appeared before them and inflicted injury on the neck and head of Bhagan Mura and thus caused grievous injuries on the person of the deceased. Though injured Bhagan Mura was immediately shifted to Tezpur Civil Hospital for treatment, he finally succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. P.W. 1, Jailu Mura, father of Bhagan Mura, lodged an FIR, exhibit-5, at Dhekiajuli Police Station. On receipt of the FIR, the police launched investigation and on completion of the investigation finding sufficient materials against the accused/Appellant above named, submitted charge sheet alleging commission of the offence under Section 302 IPC.
4. The offence under Section 302 IPC being exclusively triable by Court of Sessions the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial learned Sessions Court, on receiving the case for trial, on the basis of the materials relied upon by the prosecution, finding sufficient grounds to proceed against accused/Appellant framed formal charge under Section 302 IPC. On reading over and explaining the charge the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution side, in order to prove the charge against the accused/Appellant, examined in all 10 prosecution witnesses including the Investigating Officer and the Doctor, who carried out the post mortem examination of the deceased victim. The post mortem examination carried on 12.11.2002 on the dead body of the deceased Bhagan Mura, a male, aged about 28 years revealed the following:
Rigor mortis absent. A stout male body. Eyes and mouth was closed.
1. Incised wound over the right side of the scalp 4" X 1" X 1" in size Bone deep.
Ante mortem blood clots seen.
2. Incised wound over the left side of the neck. 4" X 2" X 1" in size. Cutting the carotid vessels and nerves on the left side. No other injury seen.
On internal examination: There is a fracture of right parietal bone and scalp. Left carotid vessels were cut.
Other organs were healthy. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature.
6. In the opinion of the Doctor conducting postmortem examination, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as result of the injury sustained. In the present case, the death of the deceased, as a result of the injuries sustained, was never challenged and, thus, is not in dispute before us.
7. In the opinion of the Doctor, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries sustained by the deceased and the injuries sustained by the injured was sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of nature.
8. It is now required to be seen from the evidence on record whether the accused/Appellant, who is facing the charge, for the commission of offence under Section 302 IPC was the author of the fatal injuries sustained by the deceased.
9. The learned Counsel for the accused Appellant strenuously submitted that the prosecution witnesses could not prove the offence alleged against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly the accused is entitled to be acquitted in the instant case. Learned Counsel for the accused-Appellant further contended that n
