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

2017 Supreme(Gau) 174

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND MIZORAM
AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN, JJ.
Dandeswar Barman – Appellant
Vs.
The State of Assam – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2015
Decided on : 23-02-2017

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. A Choudhury & Ms. M Konch, learned counsel
For the Respondents: Mr. K Konwar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code , 1860 - Section 302 and 376 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 – Offence of Murder and Rape – Appeal against Conviction - Appellant and victim were neighbours - On father of victim-went for daily work in morning and her mother also went for fishing leaving behind alone in house - At about 12:30 P.M. was itching prickly heats on the body of appellant at gateway of his house - Seeing this her aunt-Durgeswai (PW-9)-called her home - also saw itching appellant - After sometime, when came back home and found her daughter missing, she raised an alarm and searched for her - However, on vigorous search dead body of was found in the sugarcane field of appellant which is adjacent to his house - (PW-2), (PW-3), (PW-4), (PW-6) and other co-villagers also saw her dead body lying there - She was found to be raped and murdered by strangulating her neck - Persons observed bite marks over her cheek, chest and strangulation marks over her neck and blood coming out from her private parts - Strangulation mark of left hand in neck of and black stain on her left ear and eye - He also saw injury marks in back side and upper lip of her and stool in her buttock as well as blood stain in her private parts - Exhibit-12 is his inquest report also questioned the witnesses, drew sketch map etc - He sent dead body of for Post-mortem examination – Held, Appellant could not forward any plausible explanation to such injuries and his simple saying that he got injuries on his finger while fishing is unbelievable - Appellant also stated in his confession that after committing crime he went to his house and started fishing in pond at backside of his house and thereafter he played cards in house - This fact is also supported by evidence (PW-18) - Found appellant fishing in the pond and he called him to his house to play cards - Although, report of forensic expert- (PW-20)-does not decisively point the finger of guilt to appellant as evidence was destroyed, same does not at all shake backbone of prosecution case as all circumstances have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and chain of circumstances is also complete - Besides, it is golden principle of criminal jurisprudence ocular evidence must always be given preference to expert opinion even if expert opinion does not support the ocular evidence - Medical evidence proves that she was raped and murdered by strangulation And it is also evidence that appellant sustained several injuries over whole of his body which were caused by teeth bites and nail scratches - Appellant could not offer any plausible explanation to those injuries and he made confession before the magistrate where he confessed of committing rape on and then committing her murder by strangulation - His confession is also found to be true and supported by cogent evidence and as such admissible in evidence - Appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Ajit Singh, J.

The sole appellant Dandeswar Barman has been convicted on two counts for committing offences under Section 302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-, with default stipulations.

2. The victim of the incident was a small girl-Anjumani Barman-aged about 12 years 2 months.

3. According to the prosecution case, the appellant and the victim were neighbours. On 30/7/2005 the father Khargeswar Deka (PW-1) of the victim-went for daily work in the morning and her mother-Sumitra Deka (PW-10) also went for fishing leaving behind Anjumoni alone in the house. At about 12:30 P.M., Anjumoni was itching prickly heats on the body of appellant at gateway of his house. Seeing this her aunt-Durgeswai (PW-9)-called her home. Pradip Barman (PW-13) also saw Anjumoni itching the appellant. After sometime, when Sumitra came back home and found her daughter missing, she raised an alarm and searched for her. She even went to the appellant who was playing cards with Girish Barman (PW-11), Nila Barman (PW-12) and Achyut Deka (PW-19) and asked about Anjumoni, but he denied having any knowledge about her whereabouts. However, on vigorous search the dead body of Anjumani was found in the sugarcane field of the appellant which is adjacent to his house. Lachit Barman(PW-2), Hareswar Barman (PW-3), Jibeswar Barman (PW-4), Dwijen Barman (PW-6) and other co-villagers also saw her dead body lying there. She was found to be raped and murdered by strangulating her neck. The persons observed bite marks over her cheek, chest and strangulation marks over her neck and blood coming out from her private parts.

4. Kanthi Saikia (PW-15) then informed the police and Sub-Inspector Sohrab Ali (PW-25) immediately rushed to the place of occurrence. Father-Khargeswar of Anjumoni also made ejahar (Exhibit-1) at police station Baihata Chariali of Kamrup District.

5. Sohrab Ali investigated the case, got the inquest done by Guru Dutta Lahkar (PW-16).Guru Dutta found sign of strangulation mark of left hand in the neck of Anjumoni and black stain on her left ear and eye. He also saw injury marks in the back side and upper lip of her and stool in her buttock as well as blood stain in her private parts. Exhibit-12 is his inquest report. Sohrab Ali also questioned the witnesses, drew sketch map etc. He sent the dead body of Anjumoni for Post-mortem examination.

6. Dr. Putul Mahanta (PW-17) conducted post-mortem examination on Anjumoni on 31/07/2005 and found the following multiple injuries on her whole body:-

(a) Scratch abrasion (crysantic abrasion/nail mark) two in number over inner aspect of the right thigh, upper third.

(b) Two numbers of contusion of ½ and 2/1.5 cm respectively over front of the neck.

(c) Contusion of size 5.4 cm in size over upper part of chest 4 cm right from midline.

(d) Contusion of size 4x3 cm over front of neck 3 cm right from midline 2 cm above right clavicle.

(e) Contusion of size 5x4 cm over upper chest 3 cm left from midline 1.5 cm below the left clavicle.

(f) Contusion 1 x 0.9 cm in size creasantic/ nail marks over upper lip on midline.

(g) Vagina developed labia majora and minora partly separated; hymeneal admits thumb, contusion of size 3x2 cm over labia majora.

(h) Bruises over right margins of anus and anus dilated of 2.5 cm diameter.

(i) Contusion of 1 cm x 0.9 cm size in between the both horn of thyroid bone.

The doctor opined that the cause of death was due asphyxia as a result of manual strangulation and the injuries were homicidal and ante-mortem in nature caused by blunt force impact. He also reported that the vaginal and anal findings were suggestive of forceful penetration. His post mortem examination report is exhibit 13.

7. Sohrab arrested the appellant on 1/8/2005 and sent him for medical examination. Dr. Ranjit Sarma (PW-24) examined him on that day itself and found multiple teeth bites marks on his right middle finger both side of the tip with bruising, sharp cut in














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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