Surjomoni Singha Pangram Cachar (Assam) Vs. State of Assam - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1172881
CourtGuwahati High Court
Decided OnFeb-18-2014
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 71(J) of 2010
JudgeK. SREEDHAR RAO & P. K. SAIKIA
AppellantSurjomoni Singha Pangram Cachar (Assam)
RespondentState of Assam
Excerpt:
sreedhar rao, j. 1. the material-facts of the prosecution case disclose that one monithombi singha is deceased. whose son is pw-1 ~ sarat singha. appellant/accused is related to deceased in a sense that his brother is 2 her son-in-law. daughter of the deceased is married to the brother of the accused. there were matrimonial disputes between the two families. daughter of the deceased had deserted her husband, and was living with the deceased. the accused, on 27.6.2000 at around 9:45 am when the deceased was going to the nearby market area came and assaulted her with a machete. the deceased made oral dying declaration before pw-1 and pw-4 to pw-7 implicating the accused. pw-6 and pw-7, who were near the spot and have witnessed the incident. pw-5 and pw-6 are familiar to both the accused and the deceased. son of the deceased who comes to know about the incident has lodged the fir with the police on the same day at around 5:30 pm. police conducted inquest and sent the dead body for post-mortem. the post-mortem report discloses that the death is homicidal and is caused on account of head injuries. completing the investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the accused for committing offence under section 302 of the ipc. 2. the trial court considering the evidence of pw-6 and pw-7, the oral dying-declaration coupled with the post-mortem report and the motive has convicted the accused for the offence she is charged with. hence the accused is in appeal. 3. on a thorough consideration of the evidence it discloses that pw-5 and pw-6 are co-villagers, not related either to the deceased or the accused: but are familiar to the accused and the deceased. pw-7, who is witness to the incident, is daughter of the deceased. nothing has been the elicitation in the cross-examination of pw-5 and pw-6 to discredit their veracity: they being the independent witness, there is nothing to disbelieve their evidence. besides, there is an oral dying declaration made by the deceased before pw-1 and pw-4 to pw-7. in that view of the matter the appreciation of evidence and the finding of the trial court is sound and proper and hence the appeal is dismissed. 4. the fee of the amicus curiae is fixed at rupees seven thousand which will be paid to him by the state.
Judgment:

Sreedhar Rao, J.

1. The material-facts of the prosecution case disclose that one Monithombi Singha is deceased. Whose son is PW-1 ~ Sarat Singha. Appellant/accused is related to deceased in a sense that his brother is 2

her son-in-law. Daughter of the deceased is married to the brother of the accused. There were matrimonial disputes between the two families. Daughter of the deceased had deserted her husband, and was living with the deceased. The accused, on 27.6.2000 at around 9:45 AM when the deceased was going to the nearby market area came and assaulted her with a machete. The deceased made oral dying declaration before PW-1 and PW-4 to PW-7 implicating the accused. PW-6 and PW-7, who were near the spot and have witnessed the incident. PW-5 and PW-6 are familiar to both the accused and the deceased. Son of the deceased who comes to know about the incident has lodged the FIR with the police on the same day at around 5:30 PM. Police conducted inquest and sent the dead body for post-mortem. The post-mortem report discloses that the death is homicidal and is caused on account of head injuries. Completing the investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the accused for committing offence under section 302 of the IPC.

2. The trial court considering the evidence of PW-6 and PW-7, the oral dying-declaration coupled with the post-mortem report and the motive has convicted the accused for the offence she is charged with. Hence the accused is in appeal.

3. On a thorough consideration of the evidence it discloses that PW-5 and PW-6 are co-villagers, not related either to the deceased or the accused: but are familiar to the accused and the deceased. PW-7, who is witness to the incident, is daughter of the deceased. Nothing has been the elicitation in the cross-examination of PW-5 and PW-6 to discredit their veracity: they being the independent witness, there is nothing to disbelieve their evidence. Besides, there is an oral dying declaration made by the deceased before PW-1 and PW-4 to PW-7. In that view of the matter the appreciation of evidence and the finding of the trial court is sound and proper and hence the appeal is dismissed.

4. The fee of the amicus curiae is fixed at rupees seven thousand which will be paid to him by the State.