Seuni Bonia Vs. State of Assam - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - pws 6 and 7 have been declared hostile but their evidence stand well established that an incident had taken place on the date of occurrence between the accused and the deceased. p.g. agarwal, j.1. heard ms. b. acharya, learned counsel for the appellant and mr. f.h. laskar, the learned p.p.2. this appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.7.1998 passed by the addl. sessions judge, jorhat in sessions case no. 57(j-j)/96 (gr case no. 339/96) convicting the accused appellant juman bania under section 302 ipc and sentencing to rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of rs. 5000/- in default further r.i. for three months.3. the facts of the present case reflect how a minor incident may cause a major shock and loss of human life. the accused juman bonia and the deceased biren bonia were own brothers living in separate houses within the same campus. on 31.3.1996 at about 4 p.m. while the deceased biren bonia was dressing a chicken and his son was standing nearby, the dog belonging to the accused suddenly jumped on the young boy whereupon the deceased asked the accused to take proper care of the dog keeping him tied. thereafter an altercation took place between the two brothers whereupon the accused picked up a bamboo post and dealt a blow on his own brother. the injured brother was removed to hospital and the fir was lodged. though the treatment was given, the injured succumbed to the injury on 9.4.1996.4. the accused was tried for the offence under section 302 ipc and during trial, the prosecution examined as many as ten pws. on conclusion of the trial, the learned addl. sessions judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as stated above.5. pw-1 labanya bonia is the wife of the deceased and pratap bonia pw-2 is the son of pw-1. pw-2 is aged 14/15 years and a student of class viii at the relevant time. they have deposed that the incident took place while the deceased was dressing a chicken and the dog belonging to the accused jumped on the body of pw-2. some altercation took place between the two brothers and the accused appellant dealt a stroke on the head of the deceased with a bamboo post. pranab bonia (pw-3) is another son of pw-1 and bhupen bonia (pw-4) is the brother of the accused and the deceased. the wife of pw-4 was present at the time of occurrence. pw-4 after arriving at the place of occurrence took the injured to hospital. labanya bonia (pw-5) is the sister-in-law. sarunai das (pw-6) is the own sister of the accused and she claimed that on hearing a hue and cry she came out and saw the deceased lying and being treated by applying water on his head. pws 6 and 7 have been declared hostile but their evidence stand well established that an incident had taken place on the date of occurrence between the accused and the deceased. so far the evidence of pws 1 and 2 is concerned, they are the two eye witnesses and we find absolutely no reason to disbelieve these two eye witnesses. as the incident had taken place in broad day light in their house, they are the natural witnesses and they have deposed to that effect. moreover, they had no animus with the accused and nothing has come out to show that they had falsely implicated the accused and thereby allowing the actual assailant to go scot free. the witnesses had not exaggerated anything in their statement.6. the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that here was no motive or evil intention on the part of the accused in causing the death of his younger brother and the assault was made at the spur of the moment in view of the altercation that took place in between the two brothers. in this respect we may refer to the medical evidence on record. pw-8 is dr. dhiren das who held the autopsy over the dead body. the doctor has categorically stated that there was no external injury on the person of the deceased. the doctor found that there was accumulation of blood into base of brain on either side and there was haemorrhage in the brain and in the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of intratranial injuries.7. on consideration of the nature of injury and the fact that the accused death a single blow on the vital part of the body while an altercation was going on in between the two brothers, we have no hesitation to hold that there was no intention to cause death and the act of the accused constitutes an offence as defined under section 300 ipc and the offence is punishable under section 304 part ii ipc. we have heard the learned counsel for both sides on the point of sentence. the record shows that the accused was in jail custody from 3.4.1996 to 12.7.1996 and thereafter he is in the jail custody since the date of his conviction, i.e. 4.7.1998 which goes to show that the accused person was in jail custody for more than six and half years.8. considering all aspects of the matter and the facts and circumstances of the case, we sentence the accused appellant to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him and he may be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.9. the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

Judgment:

P.G. Agarwal, J.

1. Heard Ms. B. Acharya, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. F.H. Laskar, the learned P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.7.1998 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Sessions Case No. 57(J-J)/96 (GR Case No. 339/96) convicting the accused appellant Juman Bania Under Section 302 IPC and sentencing to Rigorous Imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default further R.I. for three months.

3. The facts of the present case reflect how a minor incident may cause a major shock and loss of human life. The accused Juman Bonia and the deceased Biren Bonia were own brothers living in separate houses within the same campus. On 31.3.1996 at about 4 P.M. while the deceased Biren Bonia was dressing a chicken and his son was standing nearby, the dog belonging to the accused suddenly jumped on the young boy whereupon the deceased asked the accused to take proper care of the dog keeping him tied. Thereafter an altercation took place between the two brothers whereupon the accused picked up a bamboo post and dealt a blow on his own brother. The injured brother was removed to hospital and the FIR was lodged. Though the treatment was given, the injured succumbed to the injury on 9.4.1996.

4. The accused was tried for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and during trial, the prosecution examined as many as ten PWs. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as stated above.

5. PW-1 Labanya Bonia is the wife of the deceased and Pratap Bonia PW-2 is the son of PW-1. PW-2 is aged 14/15 years and a student of Class VIII at the relevant time. They have deposed that the incident took place while the deceased was dressing a chicken and the dog belonging to the accused jumped on the body of PW-2. Some altercation took place between the two brothers and the accused appellant dealt a stroke on the head of the deceased with a bamboo post. Pranab Bonia (PW-3) is another son of PW-1 and Bhupen Bonia (PW-4) is the brother of the accused and the deceased. The wife of PW-4 was present at the time of occurrence. PW-4 after arriving at the place of occurrence took the injured to hospital. Labanya Bonia (PW-5) is the sister-in-law. Sarunai Das (PW-6) is the own sister of the accused and she claimed that on hearing a hue and cry she came out and saw the deceased lying and being treated by applying water on his head. PWs 6 and 7 have been declared hostile but their evidence stand well established that an incident had taken place on the date of occurrence between the accused and the deceased. So far the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is concerned, they are the two eye witnesses and we find absolutely no reason to disbelieve these two eye witnesses. As the incident had taken place in broad day light in their house, they are the natural witnesses and they have deposed to that effect. Moreover, they had no animus with the accused and nothing has come out to show that they had falsely implicated the accused and thereby allowing the actual assailant to go scot free. The witnesses had not exaggerated anything in their statement.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that here was no motive or evil intention on the part of the accused in causing the death of his younger brother and the assault was made at the spur of the moment in view of the altercation that took place in between the two brothers. In this respect we may refer to the medical evidence on record. PW-8 is Dr. Dhiren Das who held the autopsy over the dead body. The doctor has categorically stated that there was no external injury on the person of the deceased. The doctor found that there was accumulation of blood into base of brain on either side and there was haemorrhage in the brain and in the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of intratranial injuries.

7. On consideration of the nature of injury and the fact that the accused death a single blow on the vital part of the body while an altercation was going on in between the two brothers, we have no hesitation to hold that there was no intention to cause death and the act of the accused constitutes an offence as defined Under Section 300 IPC and the offence is punishable Under Section 304 Part II IPC. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides on the point of sentence. The record shows that the accused was in jail custody from 3.4.1996 to 12.7.1996 and thereafter he is in the jail custody since the date of his conviction, i.e. 4.7.1998 which goes to show that the accused person was in jail custody for more than six and half years.

8. Considering all aspects of the matter and the facts and circumstances of the case, we sentence the accused appellant to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him and he may be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case.

9. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.