IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AGARTALA BENCH)
IQBAL AHMED ANSARI AND C.R. SARMA, JJ.
Benu Namasudra – Appellant
Vs.
The State of Tripura – Respondent
Decided On : 02.09.2009
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 34 , 302 , 114 and 149 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Evidence Act - Section 154, 156 and 162 – Offence of Murder - Charge sheet - Appeal against conviction - Accused-appellant came to house of and calling him to house of (PW 2), they took him to the house of (PW 2) - Reaching house of (PW 2), (since deceased), accused-appellant and (since absconder) entered into the room of and started gossiping there - All of a sudden, they heard cries - Instantly, thereafter accused holding a dao in his hand and accompanied by accused came out of room and both of them threatened (PW 2) and (PW 3) with dire consequences if any of them raised alarm - After two accused fled away, (PW 2) informed his neighbours, including (PW 12) as to what had happened - Both (PW 2) and (PW 3) spent night at police station and returned, accompanied by the investigating officer in morning of following day to place of occurrence - By time police could arrive at place of occurrence, co-villagers of deceased, including his widow had already gathered there and they were informed by (P.W. 2) and (PW 3) as to what had happened - Held, Number of injuries, which had sustained type of weapon which was in all likelihood used in causing injuries and vital parts of body where injuries were inflicted, leave no room for doubt and lead one to lone and only conclusion that it was in furtherance of common intention of accused (since absconding) and accused appellant that was killed - Such finding of guilt cannot in absence of any prejudice having been shown to have been caused to accused appellant be interfered with in appeal particularly when accused appellant knew from very beginning that he was alleged to have killed along with in furtherance of their common intention for charge sheet was submitted under Section 302 read with 34, IPC naming accused as well as accused appellant as assailants showing however, accused as absconder and even while framing charge though learned trial Court had not taken aid - Court are firmly of view that evidence on record proved beyond all reasonable doubt that accused was guilty of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC - His conviction and also sentence passed against him do not therefore call for interference in appeal - Appeal dismissed
I.A. Ansari, J.
1. By judgment and order, dated 21-3-2002, passed in Sessions Case No. S. T. 9 (NT/KMP) 2001, by the learned Additional, Sessions Judge, Kamalpur, North Tripura, the accused-appellant stands convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, I. P. C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two years.
2. Prosecution's case may, in brief, be described thus:
(i) Deceased Rabindra Namasudra was the younger brother of Subodh Namasudra (PW 2). On 20-11-1999, at about 9/10 p.m., Niranjan Namasudra (since absconder), accompanied by the accused-appellant, Benu Namasudra, came to the house of Rabindra Namsudra and, calling him to the house of Subodh (PW 2), they took him to the house of Subodh (PW 2). Reaching the house of Subodh (PW 2), Rabindra (since deceased), accused-appellant, Benu, and Niranjan (since absconder), entered into the room of Subodh and started gossiping there. While they were so gossiping inside the hut, Jagadish (PW 3), who was passing through the road by the side of Subodh's house, entered into Subodh's house, on being called by Subodh (PW 2), and asked him as to who inside his (PW 2's) room was. Subodh (PW 2) informed Jagadish (PW 3) that Benu and Niranjan were gossiping with Rabindra Jagadish (PW 3), then, peeped into the said room and found Rabindra, Niranjan (since absconder) and Benu (accused-appellant) sitting on a cot and gossiping. Jagadish (PW 3), then, sat by the side of Subodh, who was making pitcher with the help of cane and bamboo, and started talking to PW 2 at his courtyard. All of a sudden, they heard Rabindra's cries. Instantly, thereafter, accused Niranjan, holding a dao in his hand and accompanied by accused Benu, came out of the room, and, both of them threatened Subodh (PW 2) and Jagadish (PW 3) with dire consequences if any of them raised alarm. After the two accused fled away, Subodh (PW 2) informed his neighbours, including Aswani, (PW 12), as to what had happened. Subodh's neighbours came to his house and they saw the dead body lying in a pool of blood inside the hut with injuries on neck, head, chest and belly.
(ii) Subodh (PW 2) and Jagadish (PW 3) went as suggested by their co-villagers, to Salema Police Station on the very night of the occurrence and verbally informed the police officer there about the occurrence. But the police officer told them that Assam Rifle personnel were conducting raids in their locality and they would take action on the following morning. Both Subodh (PW 2) and Jagadish (PW 3) spent the night at the police station and returned, accompanied by the investigating officer, in the morning of the following day (i.e., on 21-11-1999), to the place of occurrence. By the time the police could arrive at the place of occurrence, co-villagers of the deceased, including his widow, had already gathered there and they were informed by Subodh (P.W. 2) and Jagadish (PW 3) as to what had happened.
(iii) Gobinda (PW 1), one of the brothers of the deceased, on coming to know, on the following day, in the morning, i.e., on 21-11-1999, about the fact that his brother, Rabindra, had been killed by Benu and Niranjan, went to Salema Police Station to lodge 'Ejahar' (i.e., written information regarding offence), but the police officer, present there, asked him to bring a formal written 'Ejahar' (information) as regards the occurrence, whereupon Gobinda (PW 1) went back to his village and as per his instructions, Satya Debnath (PW* 16) wrote an 'Ejahar'. The 'Ejahar' so written, was, then, handed over, at the place of occurrence, to the police officer, who had come there for investigation. Based on the said written Ejahar and treating the same as the First Information Report (FIR), Salema Police Station Case No. 26/1999 was formally registered, under Sections 302/34, I. P. C., against the two accused persons aforementioned. By the time, however, the 'Ejahar' w
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.