SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Gau) 1081

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MANISH CHOUDHURY, KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, JJ.
Jogen Munda - Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam - Respondent
Criminal Appeal [Jail] No. 44 Of 2022
Decided On : 12-08-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. A. Kalita, Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondent:Ms. B. Bhuyan, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ms. M. Chakraborty, Advocate

Grave provocation by the deceased towards the accused's wife leads to a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception I of Section 300 IPC.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 383 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 300 and 302 - Criminal appeal against conviction of patricide - Appellant sentenced to life imprisonment for murder of father, later reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception I of Section 300 IPC due to grave provocation - Evidence established that deceased committed indecent act towards daughter-in-law provoking the accused. (Paras 1, 43, 41, 42)

(B) Standard of proof - The court emphasized the necessity of establishing the nature of injury and intention behind the act, following the clarifications provided in legal precedents. (Paras 36, 38)

Facts of the case:
The appellant faced charges of murder after a fatal assault on his father following an indecent act committed by the father towards the daughter-in-law, leading to a conviction initially under Section 302 IPC.

Findings of Court:
Evidence solidly supported culpable homicide with grave provocation, necessitating a reduction of the sentence.

Issues: The evaluation of whether the actions warranted a conviction of murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder, along with the application of exceptions under IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the act fell under Exception I of Section 300 IPC due to provocation, transitioning the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Result: Conviction under Section 302 IPC was altered to Section 304 Part I IPC, with a revised sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment.

Table of Content
1. summary of the trial and charges (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. arguments presented by both parties (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
3. evaluation of evidence and credibility of witnesses (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 22 , 30 , 31 , 32)
4. distinction between murder and culpable homicide (Para 33 , 34 , 40)
5. evaluating the factors of provocation in the homicide case. (Para 41)
6. final judgment and orders issued (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)

JUDGMENT :

[Manish Choudhury, J.]

The present criminal appeal from Jail under Section 383 , Code of Criminal Procedure [CrPC], 1973 [‘CrPC’ and/or ‘Code’] is directed against a Judgment and Order dated 23.02.2022 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur at Tezpur in Sessions Case no. 23 of 2018. In the trial of Sessions Case no. 23 of 2018, the accused-appellant faced a charge of patricide and after conclusion of the trial, the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur at Tezpur [‘the trial court’, for short] finding him guilty for the offence of murder under Section 300 , INDIAN PENAL CODE [IPC], has sentenced him under Section 302 , IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for another 3 [three] months. The learned trial court has observed that the period of detention, if any, already undergone by the accused during the course of investigation, enquiry or trial, shall be set off against the terms of imprisonment as per the provisions of Section 428 , CrPC.

2. The investigation was set into motion on institution of a First Information Report [FIR] by one Abdul Hasim [P.W.4] as the informant, before the Officer In-Charge, Dhekiajuli Polilce Station on 12.04.2016. In the FIR, the informant stated that at around 06-30 p.m. on 11.04.2016, his fellow villager, Chanika Munda [the deceased] was assaulted to death by his own son, Jogen Munda [the accused]. On receipt of the FIR [Ext.-3], Officer In-Charge, Dhekiajuli Police Station registered the FIR as Dhekiajuli Police Station Case no. 206/2016 for the offence under Section 302 , IPC.

3. After registration of the case, the investigation was entrusted to one Chandra Kanta Bhuyan [P.W.9], a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Dhekiajuli Police Station. On being so entrusted, the I.O. [P.W.9] visited the place of occurrence [P.O.], that is, the house of the deceased and the accused situate at Village – Palashbasti. On going there, the I.O. [P.W.9] found the deadbody of Chanika Munda lying there which was identified by one Bhola Tanti. At the place of occurrence [P.O.], the I.O. found one siprang and the said siprang was seized vide a Seizure List, Ext.-1 in presence of witnesses including Thuma Orang [P.W.-3] and Fajar Ali Ahmed [P.W.5]. The I.O. [P.W.9] also held the inquest proceeding on the deadbody of the deceased at the P.O. by Jayanta Sarkar [P.W.10], Circle Officer, Dhekiajuli Circle. P.W.10, that is, the Circle Officer, Dhekiajuli Circle after completing the inquest on the deadbody of the deceased, recorded his findings in an Inquest Report [Ext.-2]. After completion of the inquest proceeding, the deadbody was forwarded to Kanaklata Civil Hospital, Tezpur for post-mortem examination on 12.04.2016 itself. The post-mortem on the deadbody of the deceased was performed at Kanaklata Civil Hospital, Tezpur at around 03-00 p.m. on 12.04.2016 by Dr. Ranjan Kumar Mahanta [P.W.8], who was serving as the Medical & Health Officer - I in the Hospital on 12.04.2016. The Autopsy Doctor [P.W.8] thereafter, submitted a Post-Mortem Examination [PME] Report [Ext.-4] recording his findings therein. The I.O. [P.W.10] had, in the meantime, prepared a Sketch-Map of the P.O. [Ext.-5] and recorded statements of the witnesses available at the P.O.

4. As the I.O. [P.W.9] did not find the accused in his house, the I.O. made searches for him [the accused]. On receiving an information that the accused was hiding himself in the house of Thuma Orang

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top