I.A. Ansari, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 14.12.1998, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sibsagar, in Sessions Case No. 66(s-s)/96, convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 months.
2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be stated thus : On 10.9.1993 at about 7-30 PM, the accused-appellant, who was a co-labourer and neighbour of deceased Maniram Munda, having found fencing of his house broken, came in front of the house of the deceased and, upon being called by him, the deceased went out of his house to have a look at the place of the broken fencing. The accused, then assaulted the deceased by a dao. On hearing the cries of the deceased saying, 'I am being cut', his wife, Smt. Phulmati Murah, came out with a lighted lamp in her hands and saw the accused and the deceased quarrelling and scuffling with each other and when she reached the place of occurrence, she found a dao laying at the place of occurrence. Phulmati picked up the dao and threw the same away. In the meanwhile, Smt. Renu, wife of the accused, came and when she (Renu) uttered, 'Father of Anil, what are you doing there Go away', the accused fled away. The deceased was shifted in injured condition to the garden hospital, where the doctor declared him dead. Deceased Maniram's wife, Phulmati, lodged a written FIR (Ext. 1) at Demow Police Station and a case against the accused was accordingly registered. During the investigation, police held inquest over the dead-body and also seized the said dao on the same being produced by Phulmati. On completion of the investigation, the police laid charge sheet against the accused under Section 302IPC.
3. In all, prosecution examined 5 witnesses. The accused was, then, examined Under Section 313 Cr.PC and in his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offence alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of total denial. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence. On conclusion of the learned trial, the learned trial Court, on finding the accused guilty of the charge framed under Section 302 IPC, convicted him accordingly and passed sentence against him as hereinabove mentioned.
4. We have heard Mr. J. Singh, learned Amicus Curiae, and Mr. G. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.
5. In this case, the fact that Maniram met with homicidal death is not really in dispute. This apart, Dr. S. Das (PW 4), who had performed post mortem examination on the said dead body, deposed to have found as follows :
'1. One incised wound, 1/2' x 1' in size located over the left chest wall, 2' medially to the anterior axillary line exposing muscles and cutting 4th, 5th and 6th ribs at costondral junctions perforating the pericardium and left border of the heart.
2. A lacerated wound of the size 4' x 2' with smooth margins 5' below the left shoulder joint exposing the muscles and bone.
Both the lungs congested. Pericardium contains about one litre of blood. Heart is perforated by wound No. 1 as described above. All other organs healthy.'
6. The wounds aforementioned were, according to the doctor (PW 4), ante-mortem and homicidal in nature and the same were caused by heavy sharp-cutting weapon. In the opinion of the doctor (PW 4), the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries sustained by the deceased, the wound No. 1 being, in itself, sufficient to cause death of a person in the ordinary course of nature.
7. Besides the medical evidence on record, we also have the evidence of Smt. Phulmati (PW 1) wife of the deceased, and Mukha Munda (PW 3), a neighbour of the deceased. Both of them have deposed to the effect that Maniram was injured and died. In the face of the oral and medical evidence on record, as indicated hereinbefore, we hold that Maniram met with homicidal death. In fact, the defence did not, as already indicated hereinabove, dispute that Maniram met with homicidal death.
8. The question, which, now, arises for consideration is as to whether the accused-appellant was the assailant of deceased Maniram ?
9. While answering the above question, it is pertinent to note that PW 1 is the sole eye witness to the occurrence. Her evidence is that on the day of the occurrence at about 7-30 PM, when she was present at her house with her husband, Maniram, the accused, on finding the fencing of his house broken, came in front of their house and started abusing her husband and, on being called by the accused to show the broken fencing, her husband went out of the house to have a look at the place of the broken fencing. PW 1 has also deposed that soon thereafter, she heard her husband's cries saying, 'I am being cut, I am being cut,' and, on hearing the cries, so raised by her husband, she came out with a lighted lamp and saw her husband and accused quarrelling and scuffling. PW 1 has further deposed that when she reached the place of occurrence, she found, in the light of the lamp, which she was carrying, a dao laying at the place of occurrence, she picked up the same and threw the same near a banana plant. It is in the evidence of PW 1 that blood was coming out of the person of her husband, who had sustained cut injuries. It is also in the evidence of PW 1 that at that very moment, Renu, wife of the accused, came out and called her husband saying, 'Father of Anil, what are you doing there, go away' and, on being so asked by his wife, the accused fled away. PW 1 clarifies in his evidence that Anil is the name of the son of the accused. PW 1 has further clarified that Shankar Munda and Thakur Bhuyan came to the place of occurrence and they took the injured to the garden hospital, where the doctor declared injured Maniram dead and, then, she (PW 1) got an Ejahar written by the Raju Munda (PW 2) and lodged the same with the police, the police arrived on the following day in the morning and, on arrival of the police, she (PW 1) produced the dao, which she had found lying at the place of occurrence and thrown away, and, on being so produced by her, the police seized the said dao.
10. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that PW 1 is the sole eye witness to the occurrence, but she is an interested witness and her evidence clearly shows that she had not witnessed the accused dealing any dao blow on her husband and that she merely saw the accused and her husband quarrelling and scuffling. Hence, her evidence, contends, learned Amicus curiae, is not sufficient to confidently hold that her husband had been given dao blows by the accused.
11. It is, no doubt, true that PW 1 has not claimed that she had seen the accused giving blows with dao on her husband, Maniram. What is, however, of immense importance to note while, considering the evidencee of PW 1, is that she has clearly deposed that the accused had come in front of her house, the accused started abusing her husband and it was on being called by the accused that her husband had gone out to have a look at the place of the broken fencing and soon thereafter, she heard her husband's cries saying, 'I am being cut' and, on coming out of her house, she saw the accused and her husband present at the place of occurrence and a dao lying there. In her cross-examination, she clearly deposed that except her husband and the accused, she had not, at that point of time, seen anyone else at the place of occurrence. The evidence, so given by PW 1, remained unshaken in the cross-examination by the defence. What, rather, the defence suggested to this witness was that she had given a blow on the accused, when the accused was scuffling with her husband, but accidently or by mistake, the blow fell on her husband. In the suggestion so offered, there was implicit an admission by the defence that the accused was, indeed, present at the place of occurrence, he had scuffled with the deceased and that PW 1 had also arrived there.
12. Coupled with the above, it is also of immense importance to note that the evidence of PW 1 given to the effect that Renu, wife of the accused, came out and shouted, 'Father of Anil what are you doing there, go away', and the fact that when Renu so shouted, the accused fled away remained undisputed by the defence.
13. What follows from the above discussion is that though PW 1 has not seen the actual assault by dao, on her husband, at the hands of the accused, the chain of events convincingly show that the accused came in front of the house of the deceased, abused the latter and, on being called by the accused, the deceased went out to have a look at the place of the broken fencing and soon thereafter, hearing the cries of the deceased saying, 'I am being cut, 'PW 1 came out of her house with a lighted lamp in her hand, PW 1 found the accused and the deceased scuffling and a dao lying near the accused and, on being asked to 'go away' by the wife of the accused, the accused fled away. The chain of events, when so joined together, lead to the lone and only conclusion that it was none but the accused, who had injured Maniram and the injuries so sustained by Maniram caused his death.
14. So far the PW 2 (Raju Munda) is concerned, his evidence is not material inasmuch as he is a mere scribe of the FIR. However, so far PW 3 (Mukha Munda) is concerned, his evidence is of great importance inasmuch as he has deposed that at about 7'O Clock in the evening, he heard an altercation between the accused and deceased Maniram and on hearing the cries saying, 'Katiley, Katiley' (i.e., 'I am being cut', 'I am being cut') PW 3 came out of his house and saw Maniram lying with injuries on his person, but Maniram could not speak. Thus, the evidence of PW 3 also gives an indication that soon before Maniram was injured and cried out saying, 'I am being cut', he was having altercation with the accused. Thus, the evidence of PW 3 also lends credibility to the evidence of PW 1 that it was following the altercation, which her husband had with the accused that her husband sustained injuries and died.
15. The law regarding circumstantial evidence is well-settled. The chain of events shall be complete and the circumstantial evidence shall not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but that the same shall also be inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence. In the case at hand, in the face of the evidence discussed above, there can be no escape from the conclusion, and we do conclude, that it was at the hands of the accused that Maniram sustained injuries and died.
16. In view of the deadly nature of weapon, such as dao, used by the accused for causing the assault on Maniram coupled with the vital organ of the body, such as, chest, which the accused selected for giving the blows and the force with which the blows were dealt with go to show, and furnish proof of the fact that the accused intended to cause death of the said deceased and that the accused did succeed.
17. Because of what have been discussed above, we hold that the prosecution proved their case beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused had committed the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the conviction of the accused. However, the accused-appellant has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 months. Finding the sentence a little harsh, we, now, sentence the accused-appellant to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 month.
18. With the above modification in sentence passed against the accused-appellant, this appeal shall stand disposed of.
19. Send hack the LCR with a copy of this judgment and order.