Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Gau) 1250

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUWAHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
Robin Phukan, J.
Sri Jogen Baruah, S/O Lt. Ganesh Baruah And Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State Of Assam - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2011
Decided On : 09-11-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Debashree Saikia, Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondent: Mr. D. Das, Addl. PP, Assam.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent testimonies and medical evidence to establish guilt, the rejection of the right of private defence, and the application of the Probation of Offenders Act to modify the sentence.

Headnote:
Conviction - Appeal - Section 323/34 IPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:

The appellants were convicted under section 323/34 IPC for assaulting the victims with sticks and dao. The incident arose from a dispute over cutting bamboo from a disputed plot of land. The victims sustained injuries, and one of them later died.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the evidence and medical reports supported the prosecution's case, establishing the guilt of the appellants under section 323/34 IPC. The court also rejected the appellants' claims of exercising their right of private defence and the existence of a cross-case filed by the appellants against the informant.
Issues: The issues included the reliability of the evidence, the nature of injuries sustained by the victims, the right of private defence, and the existence of a cross-case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistent testimonies of the victims and other witnesses, as well as the medical evidence, to establish the guilt of the appellants. The court also emphasized that the right of private defence was not available to the appellants, and each case had to be decided on its own merit.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the appellants under section 323/34 IPC but modified the sentence to provide the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The appellants were released on probation with certain conditions and were directed to pay compensation to the victims.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. Debashree Saikia, learned Amicus Curiae and also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent.

2. This appeal, under section 374(2) Cr.P.C., six appellants namely, Shri Jogen Baruah, Nandeswar Baruah, Basanta Baruah, Kalpendra Baruah, Jyotish Baruah and Someswar Baruah, have put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order dated 05.02.2012, passed in Sessions Case No. 225 (N)/ 2000, arising out of Samaguri P.S. Case No. 50/1999, under sections 147/148/324/323 IPC added section 302 IPC, by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon.

3. It is to be noted here that vide the impugned judgment and order, dated 05.02.2012, the learned Court below had convicted the appellants under section 323/34 IPC, and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for 6 months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for another one month.

4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, are adumbrated herein below:-

“On 05.04.1999, one Ananta Mohan Mahanta of Chalchali Birohi Gaon, under Samaguri Police Station, lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-Charge, Samaguri P.S. to the effect that on the same day, at about 8 am, in the morning, while accused Jogen Baruah, Basanta Baruah, and Kalpendra Baruah were carrying bamboo, after cutting the same from his land, measuring 01 Bigha 02 Katha 17 Lecha, covered by Dag No. 615 and Patta No. 76, in connection with which a case under section 145 Cr.P.C. is pending, then he prevented them in doing so and then accused Jogen Baruah, Nandeswar Baruah, Basanta Baruah, Kalpendra Baruah, Jyotish Baruah and Someswar Baruah, being armed with sticks and dao dealt cut blow on him as well as his son- Kunja Kishor Mahanta with a dao and they also attacked his another son namely, Shamendra Mahanta with dao and stick etc. They have also assaulted his wife - Smti. Lakhi Prabha Mahanta, while she went to the place of occurrence.”

5. Upon the said FIR, the Officer-in-Charge, Samaguri P.S., registered a case being Samaguri P.S. Case No.50/1999, under Section 147/148/323/324 IPC and endorsed ASI G. Das to take preliminary step. During investigation, the ASI had visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses and got the victims examined by the Doctor and collected the report. After few days victim Kunja Kishor Mahanta suffered demise and then the I.O. held inquest on the dead body and sent the same for post-mortem examination and thereafter, he had added section 302 IPC with the previously added sections with permission from the learned court below. Thereafter, he had collected the report and then on completion of investigation, the I.O. laid charge sheet against the appellants to stand trial, in the Court under Sections 147/148/149/323/302 IPC.

6. On commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon had framed charges against the appellants, after hearing learned Advocates of both sides, under sections 323/324/302/34 IPC and on being read and explained over the same to the appellants, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the learned Court below has examined as many as 7 witnesses, including the M.O. and the I.O. and thereafter, found that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the case against the appellant under sections 323/34 IPC and sentenced them as aforesaid.

7. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal on the following grounds :-

(i) That, the evidence relied upon by the learned Court below have not conclusively proved that the appellants were the perpetrator of the alleged crime and that they have shared common intention in committing the crime.

(ii) That, the prosecution side has failed to conclusively prove that the injuries sustained by the victims were caused by the seized weapon of offence and that the Doctor (P.W.4), found that the injuries sustained by the victims were caused b