Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1581
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Mitali Thakuria, J.
Punya Kanta Das, S/O Sri Sindhura Das – Petitioner
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
Crl.A./63 of 2011
Decided On : 01-09-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr.J M Choudhury, Ms. B Sarma, Amicus Curiae, Mr.B M Choudhury, Ms.S Choudhury
For the Respondent: PP, Assam
Accidental discharges during a scuffle lack the intent required for conviction under Section 304 (Part I) IPC; the evidence must robustly support culpability beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304 (Part I) - Criminal Appeal against conviction for involuntary manslaughter resulting in death due to accidental firing during a scuffle - Trial Court convicted and sentenced accused to R.I. for five years and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- - Appeal claimed non-applicability of conviction under Section 304, asserting accidental discharge during scuffle with deceased. (Paras 2, 4, 12, 44)
(B) Legal Standard for conviction - The prosecution must prove intention or culpable knowledge, which was found absent in this case - The injury resulted from an accidental firing, not from an intentional act of the accused. (Paras 38, 44)
(C) Evidence Evaluation - Trial Court failed to substantiate reliance on witness statements, leading to reasonable doubt about the evidence against the accused. (Paras 39, 44)
(D) Confession Statement - Confession did not support intentionality required for conviction under Section 304 IPC; instead, depicted accidental scenario consistent with other evidence. (Paras 12, 38) (E) Final judgment - Conviction by the Trial Court was set aside, leading to the acquittal of the accused. (Paras 44)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of key facts of the case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. court's reasoning on the lack of intent. (Para 8 , 36) |
| 3. appellant challenges conviction based on evidence. (Para 9 , 12) |
| 4. argument on the nature of the incident. (Para 10 , 13 , 15) |
| 5. final verdict and release of the appellant. (Para 44) |
JUDGMENT :
Mitali Thakuria, J.
Heard Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for respondent State.
2. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 11.03.2011, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Sessions Case No. 85 (JJ) of 2007 (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 285/2002), whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted under Section 304 (Part I) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for five (5) years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) and in default to payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for another two (2) months.
3. The case set up by the prosecution is to the effect that on the date of occurrence i.e. on 04.04.2002, while UBC Constable Ziaul Islam and Constable Jogen Gogoi were on duty near railway crossing, When they found two youths in suspicious and in intoxicated condition and both of them were brought to the police station, where they disclosed their name as Raja Das and Karna Chetry. When they reached at Jorhat Police Station, Constable Ziaul Islam asked both the suspects to follow him and entered into general duty room to inform the officer. In the meantime, the accused Punya Kanta Das, ABC 408, entered into the room from the general duty room and asked Karna Chetry about his identity who was in the corridor of the police station. Karna Chetry attempted to grab the carbine from the possession of Punya Kanta Das. There was scuffle between them and in the scuffle, a fire shot from the carbine causing injury to Karna Chetry. The injured was immediately shifted to hospital where he was declared dead.
4. On the basis of FIR, the Officer-in-charge of Jorhat Police Station registered a case under Section 302 IPC against the accused Punya Kanta Das, being Jorhat P.S. Case No.131/2002. On completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 302 IPC was submitted against the accused Punya Kanta Das. It is pertinent to mention herein that Punya Kanta Das also lodged an FIR, alleging that Raja Das and Karna Chetry assaulted him and used criminal force with an intention to prevent him from discharging his duty as public servant. Since Karna Chetry is already dead, the case against Raja Das was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet under Sections 353 /323 IPC is laid down against Raja Das in the cross case. This case being triable by the Court of Sessions was committed for trial.
5. On appearance of the accused before the learned Trial Court, charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against accused Punya Kanta Das, who pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him and claimed to be tried.
6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 13 (thirteen) witnesses. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied that he caused the death of the deceased. The defence plea is that the carbine was triggered during the scuffle with the deceased. He pleaded that he is innocent. No defence evidence was adduced.
7. The learned Trial Court formulated two points for determination, which were as follows -
1. Whether the death of the deceased was homicidal?
2. Whether the accused committed the murder with an intention to cause death of the deceased?
8. After hearing the arguments placed by the learned counsels for both sides and considering the entire evidence on record, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused under Section 304 (Part I) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for five (5) years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thou
