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

2016 Supreme(Gau) 378

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
AJIT SINGH, N. CHAUDHURY, JJ.
Kripal Borah - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Assam - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2013
Decided On : 23-08-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. R.K. Dutta, Mr. U.J. Saikia
For the Respondents: Mr. Dhanesh Das

The consistent and corroborative testimony of eye witnesses, supported by medical evidence and seizure of the murder weapon, is crucial in establishing guilt in a murder case.

Headnote:

Conviction - Murder - Indian Penal Code Section 302 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Indian Penal Code Section 302 - The court relied on the evidence of eye witnesses and medical evidence to confirm the guilt of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a police constable, forcibly entered the house of the victim and shot him dead with a rifle. The incident was witnessed by multiple individuals, and the medical evidence confirmed the cause of death as a gunshot injury.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the appellant guilty based on the testimony of eye witnesses, medical evidence, and the seizure of the rifle and ammunition from the appellant's possession.

Issues: The main issue was the guilt of the appellant in the murder of the victim.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistent testimony of eye witnesses, corroborated by medical evidence and the seizure of the murder weapon, to establish the guilt of the appellant.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Ajit Singh, J.

The sole appellant Kripal Borah has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.

2. The victim of the incident was Majujan Ali, aged about 35 years. He used to run a bicycle repairing shop on the bank of Jamuna Canal near Circuit House at Sivsagar Town.

3. According to the prosecution case, the appellant was a Police Constable. He was assigned Guard duty in the Circuit House, Sivasagar. On 13.3.2006, he picked up one fish from the rickshaw of rickshaw puller Padum Pradhan (PW-14). When Padum Pradhan protested, the appellant quarreled with him, but returned the fish. Padum Pradhan then also complained about the conduct of appellant to Majujan Ali. Since the appellant was a frequent visitor to the shop of Majujan Ali, he advised the appellant not to trouble people. This infuriated the appellant. He not only pushed Majujan Ali on the road, but also warned that he would take revenge. And, on the same night, the appellant, after getting drunk, forcibly entered inside the house of Majujan Ali and shot him dead with .303 rifle, which was allotted to him. This he did in the presence of family members of Majujan Ali. The incident was witnessed by Khetiza Begum (PW-7), Juli Begum (PW-8) and Sulekha Begum (PW-9). Majujan Ali was carried in the car of Md. Nazimul Hussain (PW-5) to Sivasagar Civil Hospital, where he was declared dead. Md.Nazimuddin Hussain, Secretary of Village Defence Party informed the incident to Sivasagar Police Station over telephone regarding which Entry exhibit 11 was made vide G.D. No.563 dated 13.3.2006. Md. Noor Ali (PW-4) made the ejahar exhibit 3 at the same Police Station. Bisturam Kumbung (PW-17), Executive Magistrate made the inquest report exhibit 2 on the dead body of Majujan Ali. The police seized one .303 rifle bearing Butt No.53, 40 rounds of live cartridges, one cotton bundle and one rifle ceiling from the possession of appellant vide seizure memo exhibit 1.The police also seized one empty cartridge of .303 ammunition vide exhibit 10, which was found lying near the bed of appellant.

4. On 14.3.2006, Dr. Pradip Kumar Saikia (PW-12) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Majujan Ali. He, in his post mortem examination report exhibit 9, confirmed that the cause of death of Majujan Ali was due to gun-shot injury.

5. During trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. He, however, did not examine any witness in defence.

6. The trial court, relying upon the evidence of eye witnesses as well as other witnesses examined by the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.

7. Eye witnesses – Khetiza Begum (PW-7) and Juli Begum (PW-8) are wife and daughter of Majujan Ali. Therefore, they were naturally present in the house, when the incident took place. Both of them have deposed in one voice that on 13.3.2006 at about 8.30 PM, the appellant forcibly entered their house and shot dead Majujan Ali with a long barrel gun after saying that he had come to shoot him. According to their evidence, the appellant had kicked opened the front door of their house and at that time, he was in police uniform. They have also testified that the appellant fired from the gun, which is used by the police. They have even identified the gun as weapon of offence. And nothing has been brought out by the appellant in the brief cross examination of these witnesses to discredit their evidence. On the contrary, these witnesses have stood firm in their evidence that appellant alone had shot dead Majujan Ali. Another witness to the incident is Sulekha Begum (PW-9). She lived as tenant in the house of Majujan Ali and shared the common kitchen. According to her evidence, she was present in the house of Majujan Ali, when the appellant suddenly forcibly entered inside and shot dead Majujan Ali with a gun. She has thus substantially corroborated the evidence of Kh








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