Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1387
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, ANJAN MONI KALITA, JJ.
Upen Deka And S/o Late Monoram Deka – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And Ors. – Respondents
Crl.A. 47 of 2022
Decided on : 05-08-2025
For the Appellant : MR. A CHAUDHURY, MR A RAHMAN,MR. A. GAYAN, MR. P.K. MUNIR, MR. A. GAYAN, MR. P K MUNIR, MR. K MUNIR, MR. P.K. DAS, MR. B.K. MAHAJAN
For the Respondent: PP, ASSAM
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing absence of premeditation and common intention in the assault leading to death.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 341, 302, 34 and 304 - Conviction of four appellants for their involvement in the assault leading to death, initially charged under Sections 341 and 302 IPC, later modified to Section 304 IPC - Prosecution established involvement through eyewitness accounts despite minor inconsistencies - Court emphasized that common intention was not conclusively proven - Assault characterized as culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Paras 2, 39, 40)
(B) Evidence - Eyewitness testimonies can be the sole basis for conviction if found credible and consistent, and minor discrepancies do not necessarily undermine their reliability. (Paras 18, 21, 27)
(C) Common Intention - A state of mind deduced from conduct during the crime; lack of premeditation indicates Section 304 IPC applies rather than Section 302. (Paras 34, 40)
Facts of the case:
The appellants assaulted the victim, who later died from injuries sustained in the assault, during a quarrel resulting from a confrontation on March 21, 2010.
Findings of Court:
Conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, sentencing the appellants to 8 years rigorous imprisonment with fines for their actions leading to the victim's death.
Issues: Whether the appellants acted with common intention to kill the victim and whether the degree of injury sustained indicates a murder charge.
Ratio Decidendi: The conviction was modified from murder to culpable homicide due to absence of prior intention to kill, focused on the nature of the assault and presence of four attackers.
Result: Conviction modified, sentenced under Section 304 Part-II IPC and original sentence set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction under ipc sections. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. contradictions in witness testimonies. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. validity of eyewitness accounts. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. discrepancies in witness evidence. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. culpable homicide vs. murder. (Para 39 , 40) |
| 6. final judgement and sentencing. (Para 41) |
JUDGMENT :
M. Zothankhuma, J.
1. Heard Mr. P.K. Munir, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. A.Begum, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the 4 appellants, who have been convicted under Sections 34 1/302/34 of the IPC by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Baksa, Mushalpur, in Sessions Case No.249/2018, vide judgment dated 20.01.2022 and have been sentenced to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment each under Section 34 1 of the IPC. They have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months under Section 302 of the IPC.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that an FIR was lodged on 21.03.2010 at about 6 p.m. by the informants, (1) Mridul Pathak (2) Ratia Boro and (3) Pabin Swargiary to the In-charge, Baganpara Police Outpost. The FIR stated that at around 6 p.m. on 21.03.2010, four boys, namely, (1) Sonaram Boro (2) Bichitra Boro (Ramchiary) (3) Nijwm Boro and (4) Pradip Boro of Simlabari Village went to the house of Upen Deka to take a battery on rent. As they did not find Upen Deka or his family members, they went back. On the way back, the present appellants assaulted the four boys with sticks, due to which Sri Pradip Boro became unconscious on the spot. He was immediately shifted to Baganpara Hospital, wherefrom the Doctor referred him to Guwahati Medical College & Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries. Pursuant to the FIR, Barbari P.S. Case No.17/2010 under Sections 34 1/302/34 of the IPC was registered. After the investigation of the case was completed, the I.O. submitted the charge- sheet having found a prima facie case under Sections 34 1/342/302/34 of the IPC against the four appellants herein.
4. The learned Trial Court thereafter framed charges under Sections 34 1/34 and 302/34 of the IPC against the appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned Trial Court thereafter examined 10 prosecution witnesses and after examining the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the learned Trial Court came to a finding that the appellants were guilty of committing an offence under Sections 34 1/302/34 of the IPC. They were accordingly convicted under the said provisions and sentence was awarded to them, as has been referred to earlier.
5. The appellants’ counsel submits that there are contradictions in the evidence of the four witnesses, i.e., PWs 1, 2, 3 & 5. He also submits that the prosecution has not been able to bring out the motive for the appellants to have allegedly assaulted the deceased Pradip Boro, who had subsequently expired in the hospital. The learned counsel for the appellants also submits that though the witnesses have stated in their evidence that blood was coming out from the head of the deceased, there was nothing in the inquest report to show that blood was coming out from the head of the deceased. He also submits that the evidence of PW-2 is to the effect that he saw the appellant, Tarun Medhi @ Ranga Bura assaulting the deceased Pradip Boro, by tying him up with a rope in front of the house of Upen Deka. However, PW-2 had not stated the said fact before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He also submits that the evidence of PW-3 in his examination-in-chief has named the appellants as the persons who had assaulted the deceased. However, in his cross-examination, PW-3 stated that he did not know who had assaulted whom.
6. The counsel for the appellants also submits that PW-5 had also stated in his examination-in-chief that the appel
