Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 7448
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
S. S. Hazarika, J
Prabin Rajbongshi – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
Sessions Case No. 89(DU) / 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. M. Sarania
For the Respondents: Mr. Bankim Sarma
The court clarified that conviction under Sections 304 IPC depends on the intent behind the act; the appellants were held liable for manslaughter rather than murder due to lack of intent.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304 Part - I and 304 Part - II - Appeal against conviction - Appellants convicted under Section 304 Part - I IPC, sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment reduced to 5 years for conviction under Section 304 Part - II IPC - Prosecution established assault causing grievous injury, resulting in death - Issue of the appellants' intention and knowledge for murder addressed. (Paras 2, 10, 32)
(B) Legal principles - The applicability of Sections 304(I) and 304(II) IPC hinges on the intention or knowledge regarding the likelihood of death due to inflicted injuries. (Para 31)
(C) Evidence assessment - Conviction altered based on the absence of intention to murder; evidence did not establish that the appellants aimed for instant murder. (Para 31)
(D)
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that despite grievous injuries inflicted, the appellants did not intend to kill, resulting in a conversion of the conviction. The appellants' actions were not consistent with premeditated murder. (Paras 31, 32) (E)
Issues: The primary question was whether the appellants possessed the intent to kill the victim during the assault leading to death. (Paras 10, 31) (F)
Ratio Decidendi: The distinction between Part - I and Part - II of Section 304 IPC was critical, focusing on the evidence that indicated the lack of intent to kill rather than resulting injuries. (Paras 31, 32) (G)
Result: The conviction was altered, reducing the sentence from 10 years to 5 years with a fine. (Para 33)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction based on grievous injuries causing death. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 16) |
| 2. assessment of witness credibility and evidence reliability. (Para 8 , 9 , 14 , 20 , 22 , 26) |
| 3. defense arguments regarding evidence and motive. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 30) |
| 4. alteration of conviction from s.304 part - i to s.304 part - ii. (Para 32) |
| 5. final orders regarding sentencing and judgment transmission. (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
1. Heard Mr. M. Sarania, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Bankim Sarma, learned APP appearing for the State. Although notice of this appeal is duly served on respondent No.2, none appears on call for the respondent No.2.
2. This appeal under S.374(2) Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and sentence dated 12.04.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri in Sessions Case No. 89(DU) / 2017, thereby convicting the appellants under S.304 Part - I IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each in default the appellants were further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 (six) months.
3. In this order, the informant, who is also the deceased victim is referred to as "victim". The accused persons are referred to as the "appellants".
4. The prosecution case in brief is that Boga Rajbongshi (victim), then injured and since deceased, had lodged an FIR on 12.07.2017, which was registered as Khairabari P.S. Case No. 27/2017 under S.325/326/34 IPC with added S.302 IPC. In the FIR, it was stated that on 10.07.2017, at about 9.30 PM, while he was going to his residence after working as daily wage labourer, on reaching the gateway of Prabin Rajbongshi (appellant No.1), the appellants attacked him from behind by means of dao and lathi and he had sustained serious injury and fell down on ground and that Hitesh Rajbongshi (PW - 2) saw the incident and brought him to his residence. Thereafter, on 11.07.2017, in the evening, two boys of his village brought him to the police station and with the help of police, he was brought to Khairabari PHC and thereafter, he was referred to GMCH for better treatment and during treatment, he succumbed to his injuries.
5. Thereafter, postmortem was done on the dead body at GMCH and after conducting formalities including inquest. The case was investigated and the appellants, on surrendering before the Court, were sent to jail. Charge - sheet was submitted against the appellants under S.302/304 IPC. The charges were explained to the appellants, to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, charges were framed under S.302 IPC.
6. In course of trial, the prosecution had examined 10 (ten) prosecution witnesses (PWs for short), viz., Prakash Rajbongshi (PW - 1), Hiteswar Rajbongshi (PW - 2), Anjan Rajbongshi (PW - 3), Golapi Rajbongshi (PW - 4), Paresh Rajbongshi (PW - 5), Dr. Pankaj Ch. Baishya (PW - 6), Dr. Mitrajit Sarma (PW - 7), Dr. Rituraj Chaliha (PW - 9), Ganesh Basumatary (PW - 9), and Mukul Ch. Sarma (PW - 10). The prosecution had proved 7 (seven) exhibits, viz., Inquest Report (Ext.1), Medical Prescription of Khairabari PHC (Ext.2), Medical Certificate of Death (Ext.3), Postmortem Report (Ext.4), FIR (Ext.5), Sketch Map (Ext.6), and Charge - sheet (Ext.7).
7. On conclusion of the examination of the PWs, the appellants were examined under S.313 Cr.P.C. The appellants denied the charges against them and declined to examine any defence witness. The learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri had framed the following point for determination - "Whether the accused committed the murder of victim by intentionally causing his death?"
8. The learned trial Court, relying on the discussions and evidence of PW - 6, PW - 7, PW - 8 and PW - 9, held that the deceased had sustained grievous injuries before his death and such injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person and it was held that the ante - mortem injury suffered by the victim by bl
