IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
N. KOTISWAR SINGH, SOUMITRA SAIKIA, JJ.
Jagannath Barman - Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam and Ors. - Respondents
Crl. A. (J) No. 45 of 2019
Decided On : 31-08-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 86, 302, 300 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 164, 313 – Default of payment of fine – Offence of Murder – Recording of confessions and statements – Power to examine the accused – Appeal has been preferred against judgment and order passed by learned Sessions Judge which appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment – Held, Assault consisted of a series of acts – First, appellant beat mother by a bamboo lathi – Thereafter, she was dragged by neck with cycle tube – In short, it was diabolic, not indicative of a case of sudden and grave provocation or impulsive act – There is also evidence that appellant was intoxicated as deposed by PW5 – Therefore, Court are of view that Exception-4 to Section 300 IPC as contemplated under Indian Penal Code is not attracted in present appeal and, hence, Court are not inclined to interfere with conviction and sentence passed against appellant – Present appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
N. Kotiswar Singh, J.
1. This is an odious Jail Appeal of matricide.
2. Heard Mr. B. Bhagawati, learned amicus curiae. Also heard Mr. P. Barthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.
3. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.12.2018/13.12.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu by which the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months.
4. The aforesaid conviction arose out of an FIR lodged on 01.03.2015 by the informant's brother before the Officer-in-Charge, Dalimbari PP, Karbi Anglong stating that the informant's brother, Shri Jagannath Barman, the appellant herein, brutally killed their mother Niyati Barman on 26.02.2015 by assaulting her with a bamboo lathi and fastening her by a bi-cycle tube around her neck, as informed to the informant by his wife, who was present at the time and place of the incident. It was alleged that the appellant after returning home from the market at around 5 pm on 26.02.2015 had an altercation with his mother and the informant's wife was also threatened when she tried to intervene and the appellant assaulted their mother in the manner mentioned above and the appellant fled the scene after assaulting her mother.
5. On conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant.
6. The prosecution adduced evidence by examining six witnesses on the basis of which the learned Trial Court after examining the evidences, convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life as mentioned above.
7. Let us, now, examine the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
8. PW1, Sonju Mondol, a neighbour and VDP Secretary, though was not an eye witness, came to the place of occurrence after he learnt about the incident and saw the dead-body of the deceased lying in the courtyard and found a cycle tube wrapped around the neck of the deceased. PW1 also found a bamboo lathi lying near the dead-body. PW1 deposed that police seized one bamboo lathi about 3 feet long and one cycle tube from the place of occurrence. PW1 was a witness to the seizure of the aforesaid items.
9. PW2, Dhananjay Mallik, was another neighbour. Though not an eye-witness, as a VDP Secretary, after he came to know about the incident, came to the place of occurrence and saw the dead-body of the deceased lying in the courtyard and found a cycle tube wrapped around the neck of the deceased. He also saw a bamboo lathi lying near the dead-body. He also stated that the wife of the informant informed him that the appellant killed his mother by wrapping with a cycle tube on her neck and beating with a bamboo lathi. Thereafter, they informed the police and police came to the place of occurrence.
10. PW3, Smt. Karabi Singha, is also another villager, who deposed that in the evening of the day of the incident, PW5, Smti Mampi Barman came to her house and informed her that the appellant had killed his mother. After getting the said information, PW3 rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the deceased lying dead on the ground. She also noticed a bicycle tube at the place of occurrence. PW3, however, stated that she did not see the accused when she reached the place of occurrence and she did not know the reason why the accused killed the deceased.
In the cross-examination, PW3 stated that she did not know anything about any quarrel between the appellant and the deceased.
11. PW4, Dr. Norendra Nath Rajkhowa, was the doctor who conducted post mortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased. In his deposition, PW4 described the injuries as follows:-
The conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC was upheld as the act did not constitute a lesser offence due to absence of premeditation or mutual combat, with clear evidence supporting the intentio....
A conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC was adjusted to culpable homicide under Section 304 due to ambiguities in witness accounts and lack of intent, establishing a precedent for interpreting ....
The court modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to manslaughter under Section 304 Part II IPC, emphasizing lack of premeditation and specific intent due to sudden provocation.
Testimony of an injured witness is highly reliable due to the built-in guarantee of presence. The sudden fight exception applies to culpable homicide when committed without premeditation in the heat ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal provisions related to murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the IPC.
A fatal assault committed without premeditation during a sudden fight and in the heat of passion, where no undue advantage is taken, attracts Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, modifying the offence fro....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.