Sriprasad Orang Vs. State of Assam - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - 17. before parting with the case at hand, we would like to put on record our appreciation to mrs. aftab h. saikia, j.1. heard mrs. r. borbora, learned amicus curiae for the appellant and mr. z. kamar, learned p.p. representing the state of assam.2. the conviction of the appellant under section 302, ipc and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of rs. 1,000/- under section 324, ipc in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for one month so handed down by the learned additional sessions judge, tinsukia in sessions case no. 76(t)/01 have been assailed in this criminal appeal (jail).3. the prosecution case in brief, as disclosed on the fir lodged by smti hariar orang, pw1 with the officer-in-charge, bordubi police station is that on 26.9.2000 at about 11 a.m., her nephew accused sri prasad baldev of line no. 16 of itakhuli tea estate killed her husband ghursai orangandher 12 years old daughter srimati orang by means of one spade on the road in front other house. moreover he caused grievous injuries to her daughter-in-law, smti rajia orang, pw 2 by assaulting her with the spade and she was under medical treatment. on the basis of this fir investigation ensued.4. the police, on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused appellant under section 302, ipc. during the trial the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses including official witnesses namely pw 8, pw 9 and pw 12. the appellant was also examined under section 313,crpc.5. the learned sessions judge having closely appreciated the material evidence on record and on careful examination of the exhibits so relied upon by the prosecution by her the impugned judgment and order dated 30.3.2002 passed in case no. 76(t)/2001 found the appellant guilty of commission of offence of killing both the husband and daughter of pw 1 and convicted and sentenced him as already indicated above.6. such conviction and sentence have been challenged in this appeal by the appellant from jail.7. it is an admitted position mat there was no eye-witness and the entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence.8. p w11 the doctor who conducted the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased ghursai orang found the following injuries as revealed by him in his evidence:1. a lacerated injury over the right paritol regunrmeasuring 2 1 cm.2. a lacerated injury over the left occipital region measuring 3 1 cm.3. a depressed fracture involving right parital and frontal bones measuring 6 x 6 cm. 4. contusion of the scalp on the left side.9. the same doctor, pw 11 also found the following injuries on the dead body of srimati orang after having conducted the post mortem. 'injury:1. contusion over the left interior abdominal wall measuring 2 1 cm.2. contusion of the scalp on the left side.3. a depressed fracture involving peritol, temporal and frontal bones on the left side.10. pw 2, being the victim of assault by the appellant, in her deposition stated that on the day of occurrence at about 11 a.m. the appellant who was none but a neighbour, came to their house and wanted a glass of water from her sister-in-law, the deceased and the appellant after having glass of water entered the adjacent room and assaulted her with an axe on her head and on sustaining injury she fled away from her house and entered the house of monaram (c.w.) and became unconscious. later on, she came to know after regaining her sense that both her father-in-law and sister-in-law were killed by the accused.11. sri monaram orang (c.w.) in his examination categorically stated that he found both the deceased lying with injuries and on inquiry he could learn that the appellant assaulted the deceased and pw 2.12. on scrutiny of the evidence of the official witnesses, being police personnel, p ws 9,10 and 12 it is found that the offending weapon was a spade and the three witnesses stated and corroborated that the appellant surrendered before the police on the very day of occurrence and the offending weapon i.e. spade was seized by pw 12 in presence of pw 9 and 10 and the same is evident from the seizure list ext. 3.13. having meticulously analysed and evaluated the deposition of witnesses, particularly the pws 2, 9, 10 and 12 vis-a-vis the injuries inflicted on the dead body by the blunt weapon as per evidence of the doctor, we are of the considered view that the conviction of the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence was rightly recorded having found the chain of circumstances complete. pw 2 in her evidence specifically and categorically stated that it was appellant alone who assaulted her with the axe and having been injured she fled away to the house of cw 1 who corroborated her statement and thereafter the husband and daughter of the pw1 were killed.14. under such circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant had committed double murder of two innocent persons i.e. husband and daughter of pw 1. situated thus, we do not find any convincing or sufficient materials to dislodge the impugned conviction and sentence and in that view of the matter, we are in full agreement'with the views expressed and findings recorded by the learned additional sessions judge no. 1, tinsukia and consequently the same stands confirmed.15. in the result this appeal fails and stands dismissed.16. send down the lcr immediately.17. before parting with the case at hand, we would like to put on record our appreciation to mrs. r. borbora, learned amicus curiae for rendering her valuable assistance in arriving at the aforesaid decision for which she is entitled to get her professional fees which is quantified at rs. 5,000/-.

Judgment:

Aftab H. Saikia, J.

1. Heard Mrs. R. Borbora, learned amicus curiae for the appellant and Mr. Z. Kamar, learned P.P. representing the State of Assam.

2. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 324, IPC in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for one month so handed down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 76(T)/01 have been assailed in this criminal appeal (Jail).

3. The prosecution case in brief, as disclosed on the FIR lodged by Smti Hariar Orang, PW1 with the officer-in-charge, Bordubi Police Station is that on 26.9.2000 at about 11 a.m., her nephew accused Sri Prasad Baldev of Line No. 16 of Itakhuli Tea Estate killed her husband Ghursai Orangandher 12 years old daughter Srimati Orang by means of one spade on the road in front other house. Moreover he caused grievous injuries to her daughter-in-law, Smti Rajia Orang, PW 2 by assaulting her with the spade and she was under medical treatment. On the basis of this FIR investigation ensued.

4. The police, on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused appellant under Section 302, IPC. During the trial the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses including official witnesses namely PW 8, PW 9 and PW 12. The appellant was also examined under Section 313,CrPC.

5. The learned Sessions Judge having closely appreciated the material evidence on record and on careful examination of the Exhibits so relied upon by the prosecution by her the impugned judgment and order dated 30.3.2002 passed in Case No. 76(T)/2001 found the appellant guilty of commission of offence of killing both the husband and daughter of PW 1 and convicted and sentenced him as already indicated above.

6. Such conviction and sentence have been challenged in this appeal by the appellant from Jail.

7. It is an admitted position mat there was no eye-witness and the entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence.

8. P W11 the Doctor who conducted the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased Ghursai Orang found the following injuries as revealed by him in his evidence:

1. A lacerated injury over the right paritol regunrmeasuring 2 1 cm.

2. A lacerated injury over the left occipital region measuring 3 1 cm.

3. A depressed fracture involving right parital and frontal bones measuring 6 x 6 cm. 4. Contusion of the scalp on the left side.

9. The same Doctor, PW 11 also found the following injuries on the dead body of Srimati Orang after having conducted the post mortem. 'Injury:

1. Contusion over the left interior abdominal wall measuring 2 1 cm.

2. Contusion of the scalp on the left side.

3. A depressed fracture involving peritol, temporal and frontal bones on the left side.

10. PW 2, being the victim of assault by the appellant, in her deposition stated that on the day of occurrence at about 11 a.m. the appellant who was none but a neighbour, came to their house and wanted a glass of water from her sister-in-law, the deceased and the appellant after having glass of water entered the adjacent room and assaulted her with an axe on her head and on sustaining injury she fled away from her house and entered the house of Monaram (C.W.) and became unconscious. Later on, she came to know after regaining her sense that both her father-in-law and sister-in-law were killed by the accused.

11. Sri Monaram Orang (C.W.) in his examination categorically stated that he found both the deceased lying with injuries and on inquiry he could learn that the appellant assaulted the deceased and PW 2.

12. On scrutiny of the evidence of the official witnesses, being police personnel, P Ws 9,10 and 12 it is found that the offending weapon was a spade and the three witnesses stated and corroborated that the appellant surrendered before the police on the very day of occurrence and the offending weapon i.e. spade was seized by PW 12 in presence of PW 9 and 10 and the same is evident from the seizure list Ext. 3.

13. Having meticulously analysed and evaluated the deposition of witnesses, particularly the PWs 2, 9, 10 and 12 vis-a-vis the injuries inflicted on the dead body by the blunt weapon as per evidence of the doctor, we are of the considered view that the conviction of the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence was rightly recorded having found the chain of circumstances complete. PW 2 in her evidence specifically and categorically stated that it was appellant alone who assaulted her with the axe and having been injured she fled away to the house of CW 1 who corroborated her statement and thereafter the husband and daughter of the PW1 were killed.

14. Under such circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant had committed double murder of two innocent persons i.e. husband and daughter of PW 1. Situated thus, we do not find any convincing or sufficient materials to dislodge the impugned conviction and sentence and in that view of the matter, we are in full agreement'with the views expressed and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Tinsukia and consequently the same stands confirmed.

15. In the result this appeal fails and stands dismissed.

16. Send down the LCR immediately.

17. Before parting with the case at hand, we would like to put on record our appreciation to Mrs. R. Borbora, learned amicus curiae for rendering her valuable assistance in arriving at the aforesaid decision for which she is entitled to get her professional fees which is quantified at Rs. 5,000/-.