Back
2017 Supreme(Gau) 1010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
UJJAL BHUYAN, NELSON SAILO, JJ.
Sri Abdul Rahman Son of Late Hesabuddin - Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.215 of 2013
Criminal Appeal No.199 of 2013
Decided on : 15-12-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. AR Sikdar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. K Konwar, Addl.P.P.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible and corroborated testimonies of prosecution witnesses, the interpretation of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, and the consideration of individual roles in determining sentences.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Criminal Appeal - Section 302/34 IPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the appellants being convicted under Section 302/34 of the IPC for causing the death of the deceased by stabbing him with a spear. The prosecution witnesses, who were family members of the deceased, testified to the incident, while the defense argued lack of credibility in the prosecution's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecution witnesses' testimonies credible and corroborated, leading to the conviction of the appellants. The court also analyzed the applicability of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC and modified the sentences of the appellants based on their individual roles in the incident.
Issues: The key issues included the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, applicability of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, and the individual roles of the appellants in the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the credibility and corroboration of the prosecution witnesses' testimonies, as well as the interpretation of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, to reach its decision. The court also considered the individual roles of the appellants in determining their sentences.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction and sentence of one appellant under Section 302/34 IPC, while modifying the conviction and sentence of the other two appellants to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC.
Nelson Sailo, J
These two criminal appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the Judgment and Order dated 20.05.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon in Sessions Case No.60(J) of 2006 convicting the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.215 of 2013 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life while convicting the two appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 199 of 2013 under the said provisions and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. Both the sentences are also with a fine of Rs.1000/- each and with a default clause. Since the appeals are against the common Judgment and Order dated 20.5.2013, they are taken up together for disposal.
2. Heard Mr. AR Sikdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the cases and also heard Mr. K Konwar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State.
3. The case of the prosecution for the purpose of disposal of the appeals may briefly be noticed at the outset. A written ejahar was submitted by Smti Joynab Bhanu, wife of the deceased on 9.12.2004 before the Officer-In-Charge, Joghigopa police station to the effect that around 10 pm on 08.12.2004, while her husband was not at home, the appellants alongwith three other accused persons were hurling abuses at her using filthy language and to which she asked them as to why they were behaving in that manner. Her husband in the meantime arrived home and on his query, she narrated the matter to him. Upon being informed as to what had happened, her husband came out to the verandah and requested the accused persons not to repeat such activity again in future. The accused persons than chased her husband in order to beat him up. While two of the appellants, namely, Nasiran Begum and Abdul Subahan held her husband, the third appellant stabbed him with a “khapar” (spear) in his chest causing grievous injury to him. When she and others at home tried to resist the accused persons, they also attacked them with lathis, dagger and dao which were in their hands. Thereafter, her injured husband was taken to Jhogigopa Police Station with the help of their neighbours whereupon the police sent them to Goalpara Civil Hospital. However, her husband died on the way to the Hospital, while the remaining family members who were injured were being treated in the Hospital. On the basis of the first information, Joghigopa PS Case No. 70 of 2004 under Section 326/302/34 IPC was registered and investigation conducted.
4. Upon registration of the case, five accused persons including the three appellants were arrested and the charge sheet was filed by the police. Being a sessions triable case, it was committed to the Copurt of Sessions, Bongaigaon where charge was framed against the accused persons under Section 302/34 of the IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thus the trial commenced.
5. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 16 prosecution witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the defence examined one defence witness. After hearing the matter, the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon vide Judgment and Order dated 20.05.2013 convicted and sentenced the appellants as has been aforementioned. As for the remaining two accused persons i.e., Anowara Begum and Abida Akhtar they were acquitted.
6. Mr. AR Sikdar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that as can be seen from the deposition of PW-2, the alleged night of occurrence i.e., 08.12.2004 was a dark night and therefore, the prosecution witnesses could not have accurately seen that it was indeed the appellants who had attacked the deceased which resulted in his death. That apart, he submits that all the prosecution witnesses were family members of the deceased person of course except the Doctor who had conducted the medical examination and the post m
