IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR, KARDAK ETE, JJ.
Hiren Bauri S/o Late Lakhicharan Bauri – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (J) No. 9 of 2020
Decided On : 28-05-2024
Strangulation - Criminal Law - Section 302 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC for strangulating his wife to death. The prosecution's case was primarily based on the testimony of the son of the deceased, who witnessed the incident and testified against his father.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt based on the testimony of the witnesses, particularly the son of the deceased.
Issues: The key issue revolved around the credibility of the witnesses and the applicability of the legal provisions regarding sudden quarrel and loss of self-control under Section 300 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principles outlined in the case laws of Dauvaram Nirmalkar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Manjit Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, and Padma Rajbongshi vs. State of Assam to determine the applicability of the exceptions under Section 300 IPC. It emphasized the need to establish the absence of premeditation, the occurrence of a sudden quarrel, and the lack of undue advantage or cruel behavior by the offender.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC and dismissed the criminal appeal.
JUDGMENT :
KARDAK ETE, J.
1. This appeal from Jail preferred against the judgment and order dated 03.06.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Biswanath Chariali, Sonitpur, Assam, in Sessions Case No. 71/2018, whereby, the accused-appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
2. We have heard Mrs. R.D. Mozumdar, learned Amicus Curiae and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State-respondent.
3. This criminal proceeding was set into motion upon filing of an FIR dated 17-01-2018, by one Sri Jiten Guha, who is the neighbour of the accused-appellant, before the Officer-in-Charge of Sootea Police Station, Sootea, Biswanath, stating that at about 1.00 am, on 16-01-2018, his relative Junta Bauri, who lived in a house adjacent to his house, was strangled to death by her husband, Sri Hiren Bauri (accused). Accordingly, on the basis of the said FIR, police registered Sootea Police Station Case No. 09/2018, under Section 302 IPC. During investigation, inquest report was prepared by the Investigating Police Officer and autopsy was done.
4. On completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC and on committal of the case, trial was conducted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Biswanath Chariali, Sonitpur, Assam.
5. The prosecution examined 10 (ten) witnesses including the Investigating Police Officer (PW-9) and the Medical Officer (PW-10) to establish the charge against the accused-appellant. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of various incriminating materials and evidence adduced against him, where he reiterated that the allegations are false and denied of committing the offence. He stated that he has been falsely implicated.
6. The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence adduced and after considering the statement made by the appellant, held that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC and awarded sentence as indicated above.
7. For proper appreciation of the case in hand, evidence adduced by the PWs are considered.
8. PW-1, Sri Dhruba Bowry alias Ratan Bowry, is the son of the appellant and was about 9 years old when he deposed before the trial Court. He stated that the accused is his father and the deceased, Jonta Bowry is his mother. About 4 months ago, at about 1.30 am, his father/accused-appellant had killed his mother by strangulation. He was in the house and he saw his father killing his mother. He raised hullah and then his aunt (Pehi), Jonali Guha, whose house is adjacent to the house of the accused-appellant, came out of her house and raised hullah. The villagers tried to save his mother by providing heat of fire. In the next morning, the police came and took the dead body for post-mortem examination and also arrested his father. He further deposed that he gave his statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate.
In cross-examination, he stated that he usually go to sleep at 7 p.m. and quarrel occurred regularly between his father and his mother.
9. PW-2, Sri Jiten Guha, is the informant and a neighbour of the appellant. In his statement, he stated that he knew the deceased, who was the wife of the appellant and the occurrence took place four months ago. At about 1.00 a.m. in the morning, PW-1 raised alarm. His house is situated at about 30 feet from the house of the appellant and hearing the hullah, he went to the house of the appellant and saw that the deceased was lying on the ground inside the house. He deposed that PW-1 stated that his mother was killed by his father (accused appellant) by strangulation. The other villagers were called by the PW-2 and on the next morning, police c
Dauvaram Nirmalkar vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Manjit Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Pappu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the exceptions under Section 300 IPC, particularly in cases involving sudden quarrel and loss of self-control, and the need to e....
The court established that the presence of intention to kill, the nature of the weapon used, and the circumstances of the quarrel are critical in determining whether an act constitutes murder or a le....
The court established that a homicide can be classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder if committed under grave and sudden provocation, emphasizing the importance of context and the acc....
The appellate court modified the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 IPC, recognizing the absence of premeditation and intention to kill during a sudden altercation influenced by the accused's....
Culpable homicide may be reduced to lesser charges under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC when death occurs due to injuries inflicted during a sudden fight without premeditation.
The accused committed murder with the use of deadly weapons and there was no sudden fight or quarrel as envisaged in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the absence of premeditation and the nature of the altercation as a sudden fight.
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.