Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT - PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
N. KOTISWAR SINGH, SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, JJ
SANJIB BHUMIJ S/O LATE MOHENDRA BHUMIJ – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM – Respondent
Crl.A./208/2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MS S. SHARMA (LEGAL AID COUNSEL)
For the Respondents: PP, ASSAM
Credibility of relative witnesses affirmed; self-defense claims must be supported by evidence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Criminal appeal challenging conviction and life imprisonment for murder - Conviction based on evidential statements of relatives - Convicted accused argued self-defence but lacked substantiating evidence. (Paras 2, 39)
(B) Judicial Principles - The evidence of related witnesses cannot be disregarded solely based on their relationship to the victim - Credibility requires scrutiny but kinship alone does not impair reliability when the testimony is consistent and corroborated. (Paras 36, 40)
(C) Self-defence Claim - Accused's claim of acting in self-defence not supported by the evidence - No defence wounds or provocation shown; evidence corroborates state of innocence of the deceased. (Paras 38)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from a conviction of murder where the accused allegedly attacked the victim during a family puja-related quarrel resulting in the latter's death through multiple inflicted injuries.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the findings of the trial court, dismissing the appeal and affirming the conviction with modifications.
Issues: The main issues included whether the conviction was warranted based on the witness testimony and the self-defence claim of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The evidence of the witnesses, being family, was found credible and consistent, validating the trial court's conviction for murder, establishing that the accused acted unlawfully without provocation.
Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused charged with murder after assaulting victim at family gathering. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. accused claimed self-defense; prosecution argued aggression by the accused. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. witness testimony corroborates prosecution's claim of the accused's assault. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. relationship of witnesses does not undermine their testimony's credibility. (Para 36 , 38) |
| 5. trial court's conviction upheld; appeal dismissed. (Para 39 , 40) |
JUDGMENT
Date : 29-09-2022
(Susmita Phukan Khaund, J)
Heard Ms. S. Sharma, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned P.P. for the State of Assam.
2. This appeal is preferred by the accused-appellant Shri Sanjib Bhumij (hereinafter referred to as the accused) with prayer to set at naught the Judgment & Order dated 25.06.2021 of the Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 202/2013. In this case the accused was convicted and sentenced to Imprisonment for Life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- with default stipulation.
3. The investigation was set in motion by an FIR lodged by Smt. Babli Singh Bhumij (the informant in short) which unfolds that on 05.08.2014 at about 9 PM, Babli’s maternal uncle, i.e. the accused assaulted his elder brother Ratan Bhumij with lathi, knife and dao in front of his courtyard and caused his death. Thereafter the accused took the body of Ratan Bhumij (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) inside the house. At the time of the incident Chhat Narayan Puja was being observed in the house of the deceased. The accused also assaulted Sundarsai Bhumij who had come to attend the puja and thereafter the injured fled from the place of occurrence.
4. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer In-charge of Golaghat P.S. registered a Golaghat P.S. Case No. 612/2013 corresponding G.R. Case No. 1937/2013, under Section 302 /307 IPC and entrusted S.I. Jatin Dahdhora with the investigation, but vide Order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, dated 08.10.2013, the case was transferred to Bokajan P.S. The I/O of Bokajan P.S. investigated this case and finally laid charge-sheet against the accused under Section 302 /307/323 IPC.
5. At the commencement of trial, a formal charge under Section 302 /307/323 IPC was framed and read over and explained to the accused, who abjured his guilt and claimed innocence.
6. With a view to connect the accused with the crime, the prosecution adduced the evidence of 7 witnesses and exhibited various documents. The witnesses were cross- examined. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short) depicts a plea of self-defence. The accused has stated that as he was attacked by the deceased and PW-1, he had to defend himself and this may have caused the injuries sustained by the deceased as well as PW-1.
7. The learned counsel for the accused, Ms. S. Sharma laid stress in her argument that this case is sans evidence of eyewitnesses and all the witnesses are interested witnesses, being related to the deceased. It is also submitted that this case is fraught with contradictions. It is submitted that the seizure of three weapons of offence clearly depicts that the accused, who was seen by the witnesses armed with a lathi, did not use the seized iron rod and the dao. It can be well presumed that the iron rod and dao were used by the deceased and the injured person and the injuries sustained by them were the consequences of a victim defending himself in retaliation. The injured and the deceased were the aggressors in this case. It is not possible for one person to use three weapons at a go.
8. On the contrary the learned Addl. P.P. for the State emphasised in his argument that no defence wounds were sustained by the accused. The evidence is loud and clear that the accused assaulted the deceased as well as the injured person. Corroborative evidence of eye-witnesses implicate that the accused is complicit.
9. To dec
