Back
2023 Supreme(Gau) 920
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Sandeep Mehta, Susmita Phukan Khaund, JJ.
Mridul Gogoi - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam - Respondent
Crl. A(J) 57 of 2020
Decided On : 22-08-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. R. Sarma, Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondent: Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P. Assam, Ms. K. Phukan, Legal Aid Counsel
Point of Law : Accused did not commit the offence under Section 302 IPC but under Part-I of Section 304 IPC
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 341/302 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 374(2) - Offence of Murder – Appeal against Conviction - Whether the trial Court has erroneously convicted the accused u/s 302 IPC - Case falls squarely within ambit of exception 4 to Section 300 IPC - In the heat of passion both the parties worked themselves into a fit of fury on account of a verbal spat. Para 25
Finding of Court : Accused had inflicted bodily injuries on deceased which were of such a nature that were likely to cause death - There can be no doubt that accused intended to cause and did cause injuries, and liable to be punished under first part - Scenario in which accused had been stated by eye-witnesses to have given one blow on deceased, it is difficult for Court to hold that he gave blow in question either with intention of causing murder of deceased or he could have had requisite knowledge that death would otherwise be inevitable result - Court set aside conviction of accused under Section 302 IPC and instead convict him under Section 304 Part-I of IPC.
Result : Appeal is partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
S.P. Khaund, J.
1. Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant as well as Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. Also heard Ms. K. Phukan, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent no. 2.
2. This appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C is preferred by the accused appellant Sri Mridul Gogoi (herein referred to as the accused) challenging the judgment and order dated 23.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, in connection with Sessions Case No. 25(NL)/2015, convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation. He was however exonerated of the charge punishable under Section 341 IPC.
3. The FIR (Exhibit-1) unfolds that on 20.07.2013, at about 12:00 noon, Sri Bipul Baruah (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) went to the nearby shop to fetch some goods, when the accused restrained him in front of his house and assaulted him with an iron rod, causing grievous injuries on his abdomen and private parts. The neighbouring people assembled and immediately forwarded the injured to the Dhalpur hospital in an ambulance. The FIR was lodged by the mother of Bipul Baruah, Smt Binu Baruah
4. The FIR was registered as Bihupuria P.S. Case No. 167/2013, under Sections 341/326 IPC and investigation commenced. Sri Bipul Baruah expired while undergoing treatment upon which charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was added to the case. On conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the accused under Sections 341/302 IPC. This case was then committed for trial. At the commencement of trial, a formal charge under Sections 341/302 IPC was framed and read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.
5. Two substantiate its stance, the prosecution adduced the evidence of 6(six) witnesses and the defence cross-examined the witnesses to refute the charges. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C for short) and the accused stated that he had been falsely implicated. However, he admitted to have stabbed the deceased.
6. The trial Court formulated the following points for determination:-
“(i) Whether the accused person on 20.07.2023 at about 12.00 a.m. at village No. 2 Era Pather, Panigaon under Bihpuria P.S. wrongfully restrained Bipul Baruah on his way to fetch goods from shop situated nearby the house of accused person, and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC, as alleged?
(ii) Whether the accused person on the same date, time and place committed murder intentionally (or knowingly) causing the death of Bipul Baruah by inflicting blows with pointed iron rod on his abdomen and private parts, and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, as alleged?”
7. The learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant Mr. R. Sarma laid stress in his argument that this case will come under the exception to Section 300 IPC. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dilip Kumar Mondal and Another Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2015) 3 SCC 433.
8. The learned Addl. P.P. emphasised through her argument that the trial Court has correctly decided this case. The evidence of the eye witnesses establishes the guilt of the accused.
9. On the basis of corroborative and uncontroverted evidence of PW-1, 2, 3 and 4 and on the basis of uncontroverted evidence of PW-3 and PW-4, the trial Court held the accused guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC. The trial Court also took note of the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Although, the accused replied that the witnesses have adduced false evidence against him, he has admitted that he stabbed the deceased. This admission of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was heavily relied upon by the trial Court to saddle
