Back
2020 Supreme(Gau) 10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Suman Shyam, Hitesh Kumar Sarma, JJ.
Lakhan Karmakar Golaghat – Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam – Respondent
Crl. A (J) No. 57 of 2018
Decided On : 06-01-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : B. Baruah.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code –Sections 302, 300 –Criminal Procedure Code –Section 313 –Issue on death due to sudden provocation –learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant, has argued that even if the prosecution story is accepted by this Court, even then, this is a clear case where the reaction of the appellant was triggered by grave and sudden provocation by the victim himself and therefore, this is a case which would come under Exception-1 –Held, It is a case of single injury and the evidence in record indicates complete absence of any pre-meditation on the part of the appellant – If that be so, Court is of the view that it is a clear case where the appellant had acted on provocation which appears to be grave and sudden and in a fit of rage, he had inflicted the fatal blow on the head of the deceased with a hoe resulting in his death –Court therefore, find sufficient force in the submission of the learned Amicus Curiae that the present case would fall under Exception-1 – For the reasons stated above, Court convert the conviction of the appellant and sentence him to undergo imprisonment for 7 (seven) years – Appeal Partly allowed
JUDGMENT :
Suman Shyam, J.
1. Heard Mr. B. Baruah, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant. We have also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State.
2. By the impugned judgment and order dated 11.04.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat in Sessions Case No. 187/2014, the appellant has been found to be guilty of committing the murder of deceased Ranjit Orang and accordingly, he has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- with default clause.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 06.10.2013 at about 8.00 P.M. the appellant and his two brothers, viz. Sri Lambu Karmakar and Sri Siva Karmakar had waylaid the deceased at a narrow lane that leads to Galabil river and had caused grievous injuries by dealing blows on the head of the deceased with a hoe as a result of which, the victim had fainted and fallen down and later on he died, while being taken to Jorhat Medical College Hospital.
4. On 07.10.2013, an ejahar was lodged by the informant Punya Orang with the Officer-in-charge, Kamargaon Police Station, reporting the incident. Based on the F.I.R. dated 07.10.2013, Kamargaon P.S. Case No. 84/2013 was registered against the three accused persons under Sections 341/302/34 IPC. On completion of investigation, police had submitted charge-sheet against all the three accused persons under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. When the accused had pleaded innocence, the matter was sent up for trial.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution side had examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited certain documents but the defence side did not adduce any evidence.
6. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
7. Based on the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court had found the appellant to be guilty of having caused death to the victim Ranjit Orang by giving the blow on his head by means of sharp edge of a hoe and sentenced him to life imprisonment and also imposed fine. However, the two other accused, viz. Lambu Karmakar and Siva Karmakar were acquitted as no convincing evidence was found on record so as to prove the charge brought against them.
8. The informant Punya Orang is the brother of deceased Ranjit Orang. Punya Orang, who has been examined by the prosecution as PW-1, had deposed before the Court that on 06.10.2013, the appellant along with his two brothers Lambu Karmakar and Siva Karmakar had confronted the deceased on a narrow lane that leads to Galabil river and over a petty issue and had caused grievous injuries to him by giving blows on his head with a hoe. Later on, the deceased passed away on his way to the hospital. PW-1 has also deposed that his elder brother Ranjit Orang had an altercation with Siva Karmakar near the house of the accused persons whereafter, his brother came to their house, took a knife and went out again. According to the PW-1, he had tried to dissuade the parties from quarrelling but while they were coming back, accused Lakhan Karmakar i.e. the appellant herein, had struck his elder brother with the sharp edged of a hoe as a result of which, the victim had fallen down on the ground. During his cross-examination the defence side could not dislodge the testimony of the PW-1.
9. PW-2, Anup Bhuyan, is a neighbour of the three accused persons and appears to be an eyewitness to the incident. PW-2 has deposed before the Court that on the date of occurrence, while he was sleeping at home, he had heard a commotion that someone had entered Bhanu Karmakar's house which is situated behind his house. According to PW-2, Bhanu Karmakar is a widow and one boy, who stays in the house of Bhanu Karmakar, had informed Siva Karmakar that a person had entered their house. Then Siva Karmakar called PW-2 and as they came out of the house, Siva had told him that the person who had entered Bhanu's house sho
