The court upheld the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC based on credible eyewitness testimony, while acquitting the appellant of house trespass due to lack of mens rea.

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER :

S.P. Khaund, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. M Dutta, and learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. B Baruah, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms. A Begum, appearing on behalf of the State of Assam.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.2020, passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 61 (U)/2015, convicting Jaggu Hembram (hereinafter, also referred to as the appellant or the accused), under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation and under Section 448 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with default stipulation.

3. The genesis of the case was that on 16.03.2014, at about 09:30 pm, the appellant called Gopi Hembram (hereinafter also referred to as the victim or the deceased) and asked him to come out of his residence and repeatedly attacked him with a dao. Gopin Hembram instantly succumbed to his injuries, while the appellant fled from the place of occurrence (PO, for short). Gopin’s wife, Smt Marangmai Tudu raised alarm and the villagers gathered at the PO. On the following day, i.e., on 07.03.2014, Smt Marangmai Tudu (hereinafter also referred to as the informant) lodged an FIR with the Police, which was registered as Udalguri PS Case No. 330 of 2014, under Sections 448/302 IPC.

4. The Investigating Officer (IO, for short) embarked upon the investigation. He went to the place of occurrence and prepared the sketch map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Inquest was held and the body was forwarded for autopsy. The IO seized one blood-stained dao (machete kind of weapon) with a bamboo handle and forwarded the same for chemical examination.

5. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the appellant under Sections 448/302 IPC.

6. At the commencement of trial, a formal charge under Sections 448/302 IPC was framed and read over and explained to the appellant, who abjured his guilt and claimed innocence.

7. To substantiate its stance, the prosecution adduced the evidence of 11 (Eleven) witnesses, including the Medical Officer (MO, for short) and the IO.

8. On the circumstances projected against the appellant through the evidence of the witnesses, several questions were asked to the appellant and he, in a blanket manner denied his involvement. He did not tender any evidence in defence. The learned trial Court delineated the following points to decide this case:

“8. Points for determination:-

(i) Whether on 16.3.2014 at about 9.30 p.m. accused Jagu Hembram committed house trespass by entering into courtyard of the informant Marangmoi Tudu with a view to commit an offence as alleged?

(ii) Whether on 16.03.2014 at about 9.30 p.m. accused Jagu Hembram committed murder of Gopin Hembram by intentionally causing his death by attacking him with a dao and thereby committed an offence punishable U/S 302 IPC as alleged?”

Findings of the Trial Court : -

9. It was held by the learned Trial Court that the appellant visited the house of the deceased at 10 p.m.

He was carrying a sharp weapon with him.

Then, the appellant caused injury on the vital parts of the body of the deceased as proved by the doctor, PW-5.

On post-mortem examination of the dead body, sharp cut wounds were detected :-

(i) Extended from angle of mouth to nape of neck, (ii) With multiple cut injuries measuring 5’’ long x 2 inches breadth x 2 inches depth. (iii) Sharp cut injury : 2.5’’ (L) x 2 inch (B) x 2.5 inch (D), cut to shoulder bone (left) and,

(iv) Death was the result of sharp cut injury leading to haemorrhagic shock.

10. The injuries thus reflect the force exercised by the appellant while causing the same. It was also held by the learned Trial Court that it is not the case of the prosecution that the injuries were caused by the appellant as a result of sudden quarrel or sudden fight. It was held