IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Manish Choudhury, Robin Phukan, JJ.
Buwaj Horo - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Assam - Respondent
Criminal Appeal [J] No. 19 of 2020
Decided On: 28-05-2024
JUDGMENT :
Manish Choudhury, J.
1. The instant criminal appeal from Jail is preferred against a Judgment dated 17.07.2019 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Sessions Case no. 165/2014. By the Judgment and Order dated 17.07.2019, the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur has convicted the accused-appellant for the offence of murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code [IPC] and as a consequence, the accused- appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another three months. In addition, the accused-appellant has also been convicted on finding him guilty for the offence under Section 448, IPC and for the said offence, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment are ordered to run concurrently.
2. We have heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused- appellant; and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel & Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam assisted by Ms. R. Das, learned counsel for the respondent State of Assam.
3. The case, Sessions Case no. 165/2014 arose out of Tezpur Police Station Case no. 464/2014 and G.R. Case no. 936/2014. The crime case, Tezpur Police Station Case no. 464/2014 came to be registered on 24.04.2014 pursuant to lodging of a First Information Report [FIR] by the informant, Ms. Yappi Horo, wife of Late Mato Horo on 24.04.2014 before the In-Charge, Borghat Out Post under Tezpur Police Station. On receipt of the FIR, the In-Charge, Borghat Out Post after registering the same vide Borghat Out Post General Diary Entry No. 370 dated 24.04.2014, forwarded the FIR to the Officer In-Charge, Tezpur Police Station for registering a case under proper sections of law. At the same time, the investigation of the case was taken up by the In-Charge, Borghat Out Post. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer In-Charge, Tezpur Police Station registered the FIR as Tezpur Police Station Case no. 464/2014 under Section 302, IPC on 24.04.2014.
4. In the FIR, the informant had inter alia stated that when at about 04-00 p.m. on 23.04.2014, an altercation was going on between herself and her husband, Mato Haro over a domestic matter, the accused who was her brother- in-law, trespassed into their house. It was alleged that when, at first, the accused tried to assault her, her husband tried to resist the accused. The accused then picked up an axe, which her husband kept in the courtyard after cutting firewood, and assaulted her husband by striking a blow with the axe. According to the informant, her husband died instantaneously and after committing the act, the accused fled from the place of occurrence.
5. After investigating into the case, that is, Tezpur Police Station Case no. 464/2014 [corresponding G.R. Case no. 936/2014], the Investigating Officer [I.O.] of the case submitted a charge sheet under Section 173[2], CrPC vide Charge Sheet no. 214/2014 dated 23.05.2014 finding a prima facie case established against the accused for the offence under Section 302, IPC. On submission of the Charge Sheet, the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur, Tezpur as the committal court secured the appearance of the accused who was taken into custody on the date of the incident, that is, on 23.04.2014 itself, from Jail custody on 17.07.2014. As the copies were ready, the same were furnished to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207, CrPC. Finding the offence under Section 302, IPC exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tezpur by an Order of Commitment dated 17.07.2014 committed the case records of G.R. Case no. 936/2014 to the Court of Sessions, Sonitpur, Tezpur for trial. The learned Public Prosecutor was notified accordingly and the accused was directed to be produced from Jail custody before
State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya
Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab
The court determined that the accused's actions constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to the absence of premeditation and the nature of the altercation, altering the conviction fr....
The court ruled that solitary eyewitness testimony can suffice for conviction in murder cases, especially when corroborated by medical evidence. The culpable act did not fall under provocation except....
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 court affirmed the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, highlighting that the accused acted with sufficient intent, despite claims of provocation, based on consistent eyewitness testimoni....
The court affirmed the conviction for murder, establishing that a single fatal blow with a weapon can constitute murder if intended to cause serious injury, rejecting claims of provocation.
The appellants were convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as the assault occurred without premeditation during a sudden quarrel, with shared common intention.
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on intention and circumstances, with the court applying Exception-4 of Section 300 IPC in cases of sudden quarrel.
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.