Prabin Rajbongshi, S/o. Late Soneswar Rajbongshi vs State Of Assam, Represented By P. P. , Assam

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Gau) 82

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.
Prabin Rajbongshi, S/o. Late Soneswar Rajbongshi And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Assam, Represented By P.P., Assam and Anr. – Respondents
Crl. A. No.124 Of 2021
Decided On : 31-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. M. Sarania, Mr. Saif Uddin Ahmed, Ms. Neha Rai.
For the Respondents: Mr. Bankim Sarma.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304, 325, 326, 302, 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 222, 374 – Offence for murder – Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons – Learned counsel appellants learned APP appearing for State notice of this appeal is duly served on respondent appears on call for respondent – Held, Court learned trial Court had rightly held that appellants had assaulted victim jointly responsible for causing grievous injury victim succumbed to his injuries notwithstanding that appellants had told him die yet it cannot said that that appellants had assaulted victim on any vital parts of body with an intention to cause death – Order Accordingly.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. M. Sarania, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Bankim Sarma, learned APP appearing for the State. Although notice of this appeal is duly served on respondent no.2, none appears on call for the respondent no.2.

2. This appeal under section 374(2) Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and sentence dated 12.04.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri in Sessions Case No. 89(DU)/2017, thereby convicting the appellants under section 304 Part-I IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-each in default the appellants were further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months.

3. In this order, the informant, who is also the deceased victim is referred to as “victim”. The accused persons are referred to as the “appellants”.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that Boga Rajbongshi (victim), then injured and since deceased, had lodged an FIR on 12.07.2017, which was registered as Khairabari P.S. Case No. 27/2017 under sections 325/326/34 IPC with added section 302 IPC. In the FIR, it was stated that on 10.07.2017, at about 9.30 PM, while he was going to his residence after working as daily wage labourer, on reaching the gateway of Prabin Rajbongshi (appellant no.1), the appellants attacked him from behind by means of dao and lathi and he had sustained serious injury and fell down on ground and that Hitesh Rajbongshi (PW-2) saw the incident and brought him to his residence. Thereafter, on 11.07.2017, in the evening, two boys of his village brought him to the police station and with the help of police, he was brought to Khairabari PHC and thereafter, he was referred to GMCH for better treatment and during treatment, he succumbed to his injuries.

5. Thereafter, postmortem was done on the dead body at GMCH and after conducting formalities including inquest. The case was investigated and the appellants, on surrendering before the Court, were sent to jail. Charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants under section 302/304 IPC. The charges were explained to the appellants, to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, charges were framed under section 302 IPC.

6. In course of trial, the prosecution had examined 10 (ten) prosecution witnesses (PWs for short), viz., Prakash Rajbongshi (PW-1), Hiteswar Rajbongshi (PW-2), Anjan Rajbongshi (PW-3), Golapi Rajbongshi (PW4), Paresh Rajbongshi (PW-5), Dr. Pankaj Ch. Baishya (PW-6), Dr. Mitrajit Sarma (PW-7), Dr. Rituraj Chaliha (PW-9), Ganesh Basumatary (PW-9), and Mukul Ch. Sarma (PW-10). The prosecution had proved 7 (seven) exhibits, viz., Inquest Report (Ext.1), Medical Prescription of Khairabari PHC (Ext.2), Medical Certificate of Death (Ext.3), Postmortem Report (Ext.4), FIR (Ext.5), Sketch Map (Ext.6), and Charge-sheet (Ext.7).

7. On conclusion of the examination of the PWs, the appellants were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellants denied the charges against them and declined to examine any defence witness. The learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri had framed the following point for determination “Whether the accused committed the murder of victim by intentionally causing his death?”

8. The learned trial Court, relying on the discussions and evidence of PW-6, PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9, held that the deceased had sustained grievous injuries before his death and such injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person and it was held that the ante-mortem injury suffered by the victim by blunt force impact was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.

9. The learned trial Court by relying on the evidence of PW-2, PW3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-8 and PW-10, held that PW-2 was the eye witness, who had described the assault made by the appellants and arrived at a conclusion that the appellants had caused injuries on the vital regions of the body, which are sufficient to cause death of a per