Back
2022 Supreme(Gau) 687
IN THE HIGH COURT Of GAUHATI, (ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
N. Kotiswar Singh, Susmita Phukan Khaund, JJ.
Sanjib Bhumij S/o. Late Mohendra Bhumij – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam And Anr. – Respondents
Crl.A. No.208 Of 2021
Decided On : 29-09-2022
For the Petitioner: Ms. S. Sharma (Legal AID Counsel)
For the Respondent: P.P., Assam
Point of Law: A close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness, for the term “interested” postulates that the witness must have some interest in having the accused somehow or the other convicted for some animus or for some other reasons”.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 ,Section 96 – Offence of Murder – Appeal against conviction - Assault by a blunt object - Right of private defence - interested witnesses- plea of private defence has not been substantiated - Statement of the accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. will in itself not exonerate the accused -There is no evidence of sudden provocation. The accused acted without any provocation - He had no defence wounds. Para 38
Finding of the Court:
There is not even an iota of doubt that the injuries sustained by the deceased were inflicted by the accused. The accused was last seen assaulting the deceased and his presence in the place of occurrence has been proved by the evidence - Witnesses are related to the deceased and are inimical witnesses, holds no water. The evidence clearly reveals that the witnesses are related to both the accused as well as the deceased. The evidence of such a witness cannot automatically be discarded by levelling the witness as interested. It is worthy to note that there is a distinction between a witness who is related and an interested witness.
Result: Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
(Susmita Phukan Khaund, J.)
1. Heard Ms. S. Sharma, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned P.P. for the State of Assam.
2. This appeal is preferred by the accused-appellant Shri Sanjib Bhumij (hereinafter referred to as the accused) with prayer to set at naught the Judgment & Order dated 25.06.2021 of the Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 202/2013. In this case the accused was convicted and sentenced to Imprisonment for Life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-with default stipulation.
3. The investigation was set in motion by an FIR lodged by Smt. Babli Singh Bhumij (the informant in short) which unfolds that on 05.08.2014 at about 9 PM, Babli’s maternal uncle, i.e. the accused assaulted his elder brother Ratan Bhumij with lathi, knife and dao in front of his courtyard and caused his death. Thereafter the accused took the body of Ratan Bhumij (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) inside the house. At the time of the incident Chhat NarayanPujawas being observed in the house of the deceased. The accused also assaulted Sundarsai Bhumij who had come to attend the puja and thereafter the injured fled from the place of occurrence.
4. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer In-charge of Golaghat P.S. registered a Golaghat P.S. Case No. 612/2013 corresponding G.R. Case No. 1937/2013, under Section 302/307 IPC and entrusted S.I. Jatin Dahdhora with the investigation, but vide Order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, dated 08.10.2013, the case was transferred to Bokajan P.S. The I/O of Bokajan P.S. investigated this case and finally laid charge-sheet against the accused under Section 302/307/323 IPC.
5. At the commencement of trial, a formal charge under Section 302/307/323 IPC was framed and read over and explained to the accused, who abjured his guilt and claimed innocence.
6. With a view to connect the accused with the crime, the prosecution adduced the evidence of 7 witnesses and exhibited various documents. The witnesses were cross-examined. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short) depicts a plea of self-defence. The accused has stated that as he was attacked by the deceased and PW-1, he had to defend himself and this may have caused the injuries sustained by the deceased as well as PW-1.
7. The learned counsel for the accused, Ms. S. Sharma laid stress in her argument that this case is sans evidence of eyewitnesses and all the witnesses are interested witnesses, being related to the deceased. It is also submitted that this case is fraught with contradictions. It is submitted that the seizure of three weapons of offence clearly depicts that the accused, who was seen by the witnesses armed with a lathi, did not use the seized iron rod and the dao. It can be well presumed that the iron rod and dao were used by the deceased and the injured person and the injuries sustained by them were the consequences of a victim defending himself in retaliation. The injured and the deceased were the aggressors in this case. It is not possible for one person to use three weapons at a go.
8. On the contrary the learned Addl. P.P. for the State emphasised in his argument that no defence wounds were sustained by the accused. The evidence is loud and clear that the accused assaulted the deceased as well as the injured person. Corroborative evidence of eyewitnesses implicate that the accused is complicit.
9. To decide this appeal, it is necessary to advert to the evidence. Sri Sundarsai Bhumij (hereinafter referred to as the injured) has testified as PW1 that the deceased was the elder brother of the accused. The incident took place at about 8/9 PM, about a year ago. The deceased called him for a Kirtanwhich was being held in his house. At that time, the accused who was armed with an iron rod quarrelled with the deceased. The deceased raised alarm in the accused person’s courtyard, and both th
