THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MANISH CHOUDHURY, MARLI VANKUNG, JJ.
Ranglal Bhumij, S/o A. Bhumij - Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam, represented by the Public Prosecutor, Assam - Respondent
Criminal Appeal no. 399 of 2023
Decided On : 06-11-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case and incidents. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's analysis of witness testimonies. (Para 11 , 12 , 20 , 24) |
| 4. discussion on culpable homicide and exceptions. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. final order and directions regarding compensation. (Para 36 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
JUDGMENT & ORDER :
[Manish Choudhury, J]
1. The instant criminal appeal under Section 374 , Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC] is directed against a Judgment & Order dated 20.09.2014 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia [‘the Trial Court’, for short] in Sessions Case no. 172[T] of 2012. By the Judgment & Order dated 20.09.2014, the Trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant on two counts, that is, for committing offences under Section 302 , Indian Penal Code [ IPC ] and Section 323 , . For the offence under , , the accused-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another six months. For the offence under , , the accused-appellant has been imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
2. The investigation was set into motion on institution of a First Information Report [FIR] by the informant, Smti. Sefali Rajbor [P.W.1] on 14.08.2011 before the Officer In-Charge, Phillobari Police Station. In the FIR, the informant who was a resident of Krishnapur, had inter alia alleged that on 12.08.2011, her neighbour, Ranglal Bhumij, that is, the accused-appellant started quarrelling with them and assaulted them without a cause. The informant further stated that the accused-appellant assaulted her in the evening and as a result, her left hand was broken. The informant further alleged that Lalu Karmakar and her younger brother, Kanu Karmakar were also assaulted. Lalu Karmakar sustained injury on his hand. Her brother, Kanu Karmakar was assaulted when he came to disengage them from the scuffle and due to the injury sustained, Kanu Karmakar passed away previous night.
3. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer In-Charge, Phillobari Police Station registered it as Phillobari Police Station Case no. 25/2011 under Sections 325 /302, IPC [corresponding G.R. Case no. 1021/2011] and decided to take up the investigation of the case himself.
4. During the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer [I.O.] conducted inquest proceedings on the deadbody of the deceased, Kanu Karmakar in the house of Birgu Rajbhar [P.W.7] on 14.08.2011. The I.O. also sent the informant, P.W.1 who claimed to have sustained injury in the incident, to Phillobari State Dispensary on 14.08.2011 for medical examination and P.W.1 was examined by P.W.9, the Medical & Health Officer, Phillobari State Dispensary on 14.08.2011. After the inquest proceedings, the deadbody of Kanu Karmakar was sent to Tinsukia Civil Hospital for post- mortem examination. The I.O. drew up a Sketch Map of the place of occurrence [Ext.-5] and recorded the statements of the witnesses under section 161, CrPC. After collecting the Post-Mortem Examination [PME] Report and completing the investigation, the I.O. submitted a charge-sheet under Section 173 [2], CrPC vide Charge-Sheet no. 02/2012 on 31.01.2012 finding a prima facie case against the accused-appellant for committing the offences under Sections 325 /302, IPC .
5. On submission of the Charge-Sheet, the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia issued process for appearance of the accused-appellant. On receipt of the process, the accused-appellant who was earlier granted bail on 18.01.2012, appeared before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia on 18.07.2012. On that day, the copies were furnished to the accused-appellant in compliance of the provisions of Section 207 , CrPC. Finding the
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 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 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.
The court ruled that the actions of the appellants amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, reducing their conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC due to lack of intent.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the exceptions under Section 300 IPC, particularly in cases involving sudden quarrel and loss of self-control, and the need to e....
The court established that the presence of intention to kill, the nature of the weapon used, and the circumstances of the quarrel are critical in determining whether an act constitutes murder or a le....
The Court modified conviction from murder to culpable homicide, applying Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC for sudden assault without premeditation.
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.