Back
2005 Supreme(Gau) 389
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
P.G. Agarwal & B. Lamare, JJ.
Aftar Ali and another – Appellants
Vs.
State of Assam – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 56 (J) of 2000
Decided On: 18.05.2005
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Purabi Dutta Medhi, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant:B. Saikia, Advocate
The reliability of witness testimonies, corroborating medical evidence, and the intention of the accused in causing death were central to establishing guilt under Section 302/34 of the IPC.
Headnote:
Assault - Criminal Law - IPC Section 302/34 - The court discussed the incident, medical evidence, and witness testimonies to establish the accused's guilt under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The court highlighted the reliability of the witnesses, the nature of injuries, and the intention of the accused to cause death.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was against the conviction and sentencing of the accused for assaulting and causing the death of the deceased while he was ploughing his land. The witnesses, medical evidence, and weapon used were crucial in establishing the guilt of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty based on the reliable testimonies of the witnesses, medical evidence, and the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentencing of the accused.
Issues: The key issues included the reliability of witness testimonies, the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased, and the intention of the accused in causing the death.
Ratio Decidendi: The reliability of witness testimonies, corroborating medical evidence, and the nature of injuries were crucial in establishing the guilt of the accused under Section 302/34 of the IPC.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentencing of the accused were upheld.
P.G. Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Smti. Purabi Dutta Medhi, learned Amicus Curiae for the Appellants and Smti. B. Saikia, learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondents.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.11.1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Karimganj in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1996 whereby the accused Appellants have been convicted and sentenced.
3. Abdul Sattar P.W. 1 lodged a written FIR on 31.10.1994 before the OC Patharkandi Police Station stating inter-alia that on the date of occurrence around 6 AM while his younger brother Shakhawat Ali was ploughing his own field, the two accused Appellants who are also his own brother and cousin namely; Aftar Ali and Amir Uddin came to the field and started assaulting Shakhawat Ali whereupon the latter fled the scene by crossing the river. The two accused persons, however, chased him and assaulted him as a result of which Shakhawat sustained injuries. He was removed to hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. Police made usual investigation and thereafter, submitted charge-sheet against the two accused persons who were tried by the Sessions Judge, Karimganj in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1996. As many as seven witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and the defence has also examined one witness and vide impugned judgment the learned trial Court convicted the two accused Appellants under Section 302/34, IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each in default further imprisonment for one month each. Hence the present appeal.
4. On the question whether the incident as alleged by the prosecution had taken place on the date and time, at the place and in the manner alleged by the prosecution, there is evidence of Abdul Sattar P.W. 1, Fakaruddin P.W. 2, Nooruddin P.W. 3, Sufia Begum P.W. 4 and Smti. Shru Bibi. As a matter of fact even the defence witness Hussain Ahmed D.W. 1 has also deposed about the incident taking place on the date of occurrence between the deceased and the accused persons. D.W. 1 has, however, given a different version of the story as regards the manner in which the incident took place.
5. In the present case, so far the death of the deceased in the above incident is concerned there is oral as well as medical evidence on record and the same has not been disputed. Dr. Swapan Kr. Sen P.W. 6 conducted the autopsy over the dead body and found as follows:
EXTERNAL APPEARANCE:
An average built Muslim male aged about 35 years whose rigor mortis was present. Eyes half opened, mouth half opened. (1) There is one deep penetrating wound about 2½" x 1" x 3" deep on the left posterior chest below the 9th rib on the posterior aspect cutting the adjoining muscles, vessels, lungs. (2) There is one deep penetrating wound about 1" x ½" x4" deep on the medial aspect of the left scapula below the 3rd rib on the posterior aspect of the trunk cutting the adjoining muscles, vessels and lungs.
In the opinion of the doctor, all the injuries were ante-mortem and the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries sustained. The doctor has further opined that either of the injuries was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature as we find that the left lung was cut.
6. The informant Abdul Sattar P.W. 1 has fully supported the prosecution story as stated in Para 3 above. According to this witness the land in question belonged to the deceased Shakhawat and the incident took place while the deceased was ploughing the said land. P.W. 1 has got land contiguous to the land of the deceased and at the relevant time he was also ploughing his own land along with his sons Fakaruddin P.W. 2 and Nooruddin P.W. 3. This witness has stated that while the deceased was ploughing his land the two accused persons came to the spot and obstructed and prevented the deceased from ploughing the land and accused Aftar Ali assaulted Shakhawat whereby Shakhawat ran towards his house by crossing the river. It may
