DISTRICT : GOLAGHAT.

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE AT GOLAGHAT.

Ref. :- Sessions Case No. 113/2010.

G.R. Case No. 850/2008.

U/S. 459/326/302 of IPC.

.

The State of Assam ...... Prosecution.

Vs.

Sri Ranjit Bora. ....... Accused.

Dates of charge .... ...... 18.12.2010.

Dates of evidence .... ...... 12.12.2011, 06.03.2012,

13.06.2012. 13.07.2012,

30.08.2012, 14.09.2012,

16.10.2012, 06.04.2013,

25.06.2014, 25.07.2014,

Date of argument .... ...... 02.09.2014, 17.9.2014.

Date of judgment and order ...... 20.09.2014.

APPEARANCES :-

For the prosecution ........ Mr. D.P. Jaiswal,

Public Prosecutor, Golaghat.

AND

For the accused person ........ Mr. D.J. Borah,

Advocate, Golaghat.

P R E S E N T :

SHRI T. LOHAR,

SESSIONS JUDGE,

GOLAGHAT.

2

JUDGMENT AND OORDER :

1. The Officer-in-charge Sri Biren Buragohain of Dergaon

police station received a telephonic information on 18.8.2008 at 9'20

P.M., from an unknown person informing him that a little earlier, in the

house of Sri Ananda Bora located near 'Namghar' of Bhakatia village,

Sri Bashab Bora was killed by Sri Ranjit Bora of the same village by

inflicting cut injury after causing injured to three other persons and then

said Ranjit Bora fled away. The the O/C Sri Biren Buragohain of

Dergaon police station prepared the GDE No. 468, dated 18.8.2008

(Ext-13) and informed to the Superintendent of Police, Golaghat over

telephone and then he proceeded to the place of incident on the same

night. He received the ejahar at night of about 1 A.M. (intervening night

between the date of 18.8.2008 and 19.8.2008) from Sri Atul Bora, at the

place of incident stating that on 18.8.2008, at around 8'30 P.M., accused

Sri Ranjit Bora being armed with dao/khukri, entered into the house of

Sri Ananda Bora and inflicted cut injury to said Ananda Borah and his

wife Smti. Nijumoni borah causing them grievous injuries. Thereafter,

the accused inflicted cut injury on the neck of Bashab Bora causing him

spot death. Thereafter, the accused Ranjit Bora fled away from the house

of Ananda Bora. On the way, the accused Ranjit Bora came across Sri

Manash Borah, who was also inflicted cut injury by the said accused.

2. The O/C of Dergaon police station on receipt of the written

ejahar from the informant Sri Atul Bora on 18.8.2008, registered a case

vide Dergaon P.S. Case No. 200/2008 u/s 302/326 of IPC. S.I. of police

Sri Ruhindra Nath Changmai investigated into the case and submitted

charge sheet u/s 457/302/326 of IPC against accused Ranjit Bora to face

the trial.

3. As the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions,

the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate , Golaghat committed

the case to the Court of Sessions. Accordingly, the case came up before

this Court for trial.

4. On appearance of the accused person and after hearing

from both the sides, the prima facie material for the offence u/s

3

459/326/302 of IPC were found against the accused person to frame the

charges. Accordingly, accused Ranjit Bora was charged u/s 459/326/302

of IPC and the contents of the charges had been read over and explained

to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. Prosecution adduced the evidence of 14 witnesses to prove

the case. The accused person adduced his evidence u/s 315 of Cr.P.C.

and examined one D.W. The accused person has been examined u/s 313

of Cr.P.C. The plea of the accused is one of total denial.

6. The learned defence counsel submitted the written

argument. The copy of which was furnished to the learned Public

Prosecutor, Golaghat. The learned Public Prosecutor, Golaghat has

submitted his oral argument.

7. Now, the points for determination in this case are :-

(i) “ Whether the accused person on 18.8.2008, at around

8'30 P.M., at Bhaktia gaon under Dergaon police station,

District Golaghat while committing house breaking in

the dwelling house of Sri Ananda Bora, caused

grievous hurt to said Ananda Bora and his wife Smti.

Nijumoni Bora by means of sharp cutting weapon ?

(ii) Whether the accused person on the same day, time and

place as stated above, voluntarily caused grievous hurt

to Sri Ananda Bora and his wife Smti. Nijumoni

Bora by means of a Khukri ?

(iii) Whether the accused person on the same day, time and

place as stated above, caused the death of Bashab

Bora intentionally ?”

4

DISCUSSIONS, DECISION AND REASONS

THEREOF :

8. All the aforesaid three points are interrelated to each other,

therefore, all of the points are taken up together for discussions.

9. Let me discuss the evidence on record to see as to whether

the prosecution is able to prove the above points.

10. P. W.1 Sri Atul Bora has deposed in evidence that on

18.8.2008, at night of about 10 P.M., while he was sleeping in his house,

police called him to the house of his brother Ananda Bora. There he saw

the dead body of Bashab Bora lying on the court-yard of the said house.

He saw one cut injury on the neck of said Bashab Bora. He came to

know from the police that in the mean time, his younger brother Ananda

Bora and sister-in-law Nijumoni Bora (the wife of Ananda Bora) were

sent to the hospital in the state of injured condition. Police inquested

over the dead body of the deceased in front of him. Thereafter, he lodged

the ejahar. Ext-1 is the said ejahar, upon which Ext-1(1) is his signature.

Ext-2 is the inquest report, upon which Ext-2(1) is his signature. P.W.1

has further deposed that he went to Jorhat Medical College and saw cut

injury on the cheek of Ananda Bora and on the finger of Smti. Nijumoni

Bora in the hospital. He came to know from Dilip Bora that accused had

killed Bashab.

In cross examination, P.W.1 has stated that there was no

any person except the police when he put his signature vide Ext-1(1) on

the ejahar Ext-1. He could not say what has been written in the ejahar.

He came to know about the incident from neighbour Dilip Bora on the

next day of the occurrence. Now Dilip Bora has left for some other

place.

11. P.W. 2 Sri Diganta Bora has deposed in evidence that after

10/15 days from the date of death of Bashab Bora, he went to the house

of accused person at forenoon on seeing the police personnel there.

Police seized some clothes from there under Ext-3 the seizure list, upon

which Ext-3(1) is his signature. At that time, the accused person and the

5

villagers were present there. Thereafter, this witness has been declared

as hostile as he resiled from his previous statement as recorded u/s 161

of Cr.P.C.

12. P.W. 3 Dr. Neelima Phukan has deposed in evidence that on

19.8.2008, as per police requisition, she conducted the autopsy on the

dead body of deceased Bashab Bora, aged about 32 years at Kushal

Konwar Civil Hospital, Golaghat on being escorted by constable/245

Rajib Bora and relative of the deceased Sri Dilip Bora and found the

following -

Dead body of an adult male of 32 years of age, Wheaties

complexion, blood stain present over the chest and arm.

Rigor mortis present.

On examination, she found one sharp cutting injury over

the left side of the neck in oblique direction from upward to

downward direction from 6th and 7th cervical vertebrae to

left side of the Thirod cartilages cutting of soft tissues,

muscles and pleat vassals of the left side, size – 10 Cm. X

7Cm. X 5 Cm.

Other organs were found healthy.

The injury is ante mortem in nature.

The injury is grievous in nature and within 48 hours.

After examination, the Doctor, P.W.3 has opined that the

cause of death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage as a

result of injury sustained by the deceased. Ext-4 is the post mortem

examination report, upon which Ext-4(1) is her signature. Ext-4(2) is

the signature of Dr. Ajit Kr. Sarmah, the Superintendent of Kushal

Konwar Civil Hospital, Golaghat and Ext-4(3) is the signature of Dr.

Mohen Baruah, the Joint Director of Health Services, Golaghat which

she knew their signatures.

13. P.W.4 Sri Sanjib Bora has deposed in evidence that the

occurrence took place at around one year ago. He came to know from

the neighbours that Bashab Bora died in the occurrence. One day,

6

police came in the house of accused Ranjit Bora. Police seized one

khukri and a stick from the house of the accused person under the

seizure list vide Ext-3, upon which Ext-3(2) is his signature.

In cross examination, P.W.4 has stated that he did not see

anything of the seized article in the Court while recording his statement.

14. P.W.5 Dr. Bipul Bora has deposed in evidence that on

18.8.2008, while he was working at Dergaon CHC as Medical & Health

Officer-1, on that day, at around 10'30 P.M., he examined Sri Ananda

Bora vide EOPD No. 1446 on being escorted by HG Ranjit Gogoi of

Dergaon police station and found -

One incised wound over the left side of cheek extending

from mandibular angle to ramus , size – 8Cm X '5Cm.

Stitched and referred to Jorhat Civil Hospital for further

treatment.

On the same day and same time, he examined Smt

iNijumoni Bora, wife of Sri Ananda Bora vide EOPD No. 1447,

escorted by HG Ranjit Gogoi of Dergaon police station and found -

(i) Amputation on right thumb.

(ii)Amputation of the left ring finger.

(iii)Incised wound of right middle ring finger.

He referred the injured to Jorhat Civil Hospital for needful.

Ext-5 is the injury report, upon which Ext-5(1) is the signature of Dr.

B.C. Hazarika, the then Deputy Superintendent of Dergaon CHC, which

he knew his signature.

15. P.W.6 Sri Ananda Bora has deposed in evidence that the

occurrence took place about 4 years ago, one night, at around 8'30 P.M.,

while he was in his house. At that time, Bashab Bora was tutoring his

son Sri Biplabjyoti Bora. He (P.W.6) was sitting besides him along with

his wife Smti. Niju Bora. His son Biplabjyoti Bora was showing the

mark-sheet to his mother Niju Bora. At that time, accused Ranjit Bora

entered into said room with a dao in his hand. At first, accused Ranjit

Bora inflicted cut injury on the hand of his wife Niju Bora. Then his

wife Niju Bora came out from the house and rushed to the nearby house

7

of her uncle Atul Bora (P.W.1). When he (P.W.6) about to stand-up from

the chair, the accused Ranjit inflicted cut injury on his left cheek. When

he was trying to come out from the room, he saw accused Ranjit Bora

inflicting cut injury on the neck of Bashab Bora. Seeing this incident, his

son Biplabjyoti Bora fled away from there. Then accused Ranjit Bora

left the place. P.W.6 along with his wife P.W.7 were brought to Dergaon

Govt. Hospital for treatment. He undertook medical treatment at hospital

as indoor patient for more than one month. Bashab Bora died when

P.W.6 was in the house of his brother P.W.1. His statement has been

recorded by the Court u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. Ext-6(A) is the said statement

recorded u/s 164 of Cr.P.C.

In cross examination, P.W.6 has stated that he had no

previous grudge against the accused person. Both he and the accused

were working as mason for about 8 years prior to the occurrence. At the

time of occurrence, there was no electric light. At the time of

occurrence, a lamp was burning in the room which was made of

medicine bottle. The house of the elder brother of Niju Bora is situated

nearby.

16. P.W.7 Smti. Niju Bora has deposed in evidence that the

occurrence took place at about 4 years ago, one night, at around 8/8'30

P.M. in her house. At that time, Bashab Bora (since deceased) was

tutoring her son Biplabjyoti Bora, who was then studying at Class II and

at that time, her son was showing the mark-sheet of his half yearly

examination to said Bashab Bora. Her husband Ananda Bora (P.W.6)

was sitting on the nearby chair and her two years old baby was in the lap

of her husband. In the mean time, accused Ranjit Bora entered into the

room with a 'khukri' in his hand by pushing the door of the room and

inflicted cut injury on her both palms. One portion of her right thumb

has been severed . Then she shouted “dada”, “dada” and rushed towards

the house of Atul Bora(P.W.1) and fell down there in the varandah.

Atul Bora (P.W.1) is her uncle. She became senseless. She was brought

to Dhemaji hospital along with her husband with the help of police. But

bleeding from injury could not stop and therefore, she was sent to Jorhat

8

Civil Hospital for treatment, wherein, she was admitted there and

undertook medical treatment for the period of one and half months as

indoor patient. P.W.7 has further deposed that when she rushed to the

house of Atul Bora, her husband was followed her and her husband also

fell in the house of Atul Bora. Her husband (P.W.6) sustained injury on

his mouth. When she was lying in injured condition, then she came to

know from one Bhoben that Bashab Bora was inflicted cut injury by

accused Ranjit Bora causing him spot death. When she was running

from her house, at that time, accused Ranjit Bora, Bashab Bora (since

deceased) and her husband along with her two children were remaining

in her house. She gave statement before the court. She could put her

signature. But on that day, as her right thumb was cut and bandaged,

therefore, she put her left thumb impression on her statement recorded

u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. Her right thumb has been invalid due to the injury

sustained by her. P.W.7 has further stated that one portion of her left

hand's ring finger has been severed in the incident.

In cross examination, P.W.7 has stated that there was no

previous grudge against the accused Ranjit Bora. Therefore, she could

not say as to why the accused entered into her room and inflicted cut

injury to her. At the time of occurrence, a lamp was burning and that

lamp was burning till the morning. P.W.7 further stated in her cross

examination that while the accused entered into her room, he hide his

'khukri' on his back side and gave blow to her and in order to prevent the

said blow, she raised her hands. After receiving the 'khukri' blow, she

rushed to the house of her uncle Atul Bora (P.W.1) and fell on the

varandah of his house. Then her husband arrived there.

17. P.W.8 Sri Manash Bora has deposed in evidence that about

4/5 years ago, one night of about 8/9 P.M., when he was returning home

with Bolin Kalita by riding bicycle along the way, when Bolin Kalita

halted his bicycle to answer the call of nature, he also halted his bicycle

on receiving a telephonic call. At that time, accused Ranjit Bora was

coming from the opposite side by riding bicycle and when accused

Ranjit Bora reached near him, he called him by uttering his name , then

9

the accused Ranjit Bora gave blow on his right ear with a sharp weapon.

Then he (P.W.8) ran away from there leaving behind his bicycle.

Thereafter, the neighbours arrived there. One Nanda Hazarika took him

to his house. He (P.W.8) became senseless and he undertook medical

treatment at Jorhat Civil Hospital. Later on, he came to know that the

accused after attacked Bashab Bora and then he inflicted cut injury to

him.

P.W.8 has been thoroughly cross examined by the learned

defence counsel, but nothing has been elicited from him which belied

his testimony.

18. P.W. 9 Sri Nanda Hazarika has deposed in evidence that

deceased Bashab Bora was killed by somebody four years ago and later

on, on the same day of incident, he came to know that accused Ranjit

Bora had killed Bashab Bora. He (P.W.9) found the dead body of Bashab

Bora in the court-yard of the house belonged to P.W.7 Smti. Niju Bora.

P.W.9 has further deposed that he saw his neighbour P.W.8 Manash

Bora in a state of injured condition near his house. He bandaged the

injury sustained by P.W.8 Manash Bora after bringing him to his house.

He could not say who had caused injury to Manash Bora (P.W.8) . P.W.9

has been declared as hostile witness.

P.W.9 has stated in cross examination by the defence that

P.W.8 Manash Bora did not state to him who had cause injury to him,but

he supported the fact that P.W.3 Manash Bora sustained injury. He is not

the eye witness to the incident that took place inside the house of

Ananda Bora (P.W.6).

19. P.W.10 Sri Ratul Bora has deposed in evidence that about

3/ 4 years ago, one night, while Bashab Bora was tutoring a boy in the

house of some one, he died there and police seized the bicycle from the

house of accused Ranjit Bora which was brought out by his nephew

Diganta Bora. Ext-6 is the seizure list, upon which Ext-6(1) is his

signature.

20. P.W. 11 Sri Ranjit Bora has deposed in evidence that about

3/ 4 years ago, when he returned home on the next day of the

10

occurrence, he came to know that accused had killed some one at

Cherekichuk of Bhakatia gaon. After 4 days of the occurrence, when he

returned from his cultivation field, he saw the gathering in the house of

accused Ranjit Bora. Then he went there on believing of happening of

some incident like earlier. The police personnel along with the police

van were there in the midst of the gathering. The accused Ranjit Bora

was sitting inside the police van. Police seized the bicycle which was

used by the accused Ranjit Bora at the time of incident. Ext-6 is the

seizure list, upon which Ext-6(2) is his signature.

21. P.W.12 Sri Biren Borgohain, S.I. of police has deposed in

evidence that on 18.8.2008, while he was working as Officer-in-charge

at Dergaon police station, on that day, at night of about 9'20 P.M., he

was informed by some unknown person from Bhakatia gaon over

telephone that in the house of Ananda Bora located near Namghar of

Bhakatia gaon, Sri Bashab Bora was killed by Sri Ranjit Bora of the

same village by inflicting cut injury after causing injured to three other

persons. Then he prepared the GDE No.468, dated 18.8.2008 and

informed the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Golaghat and

proceeded to the place of incident. It was 9'30 P.M., when he proceeded

to the place of incident. Near a gate, he saw Manash Bora of Bhakatia

gaon sustained bleeding injury on his head. Seeing his serious condition,

the P.W.12 Biren Borgohain sent him to Golaghat Civil Hospital on

police requisition. Then he went to Bhakatia gaon and saw gathering in

the house of Ananda Bora. Thereafter, he came to know that one youth

had killed Bashab Bora and caused grievous injuries to two persons. He

(P.W.12) rushed to the house of P.W.1 Atul Bora, wherein said two

injured persons were lying. He saw injured Ananda Bora and Smti. Niju

Bora there. Then he sent them to Dergaon CHC on police requisition.

He drew up the sketch map of the place of incident and found the dead

body of Bashab Bora on the varandah of the house of Ananda

Bora().W.7). Thereafter, he prepared the inquest over the dead body of

the deceased, examined the witnesses. P.W.1, Atul Bora handed over the

ejahar to him at the place of incident. Then he registered the case vide

11

Dergaon P.S. Case No. 200/2008 u/s 302/326 of IPC and he himself took

the case for investigation, sent the dead body to Golaghat Civil Hospital

for post mortem examination. Thereafter, he went to the house of the

accused Ranjit Bora, but did not find him there. On 20.8.2008, he

received a telephonic call from Golaghat police station at 9'20 A.M. that

accused Ranjit Bora had surrendered in the police station on the last

night at around 9/10 P.M. Then he interrogated the accused person and

sent him to the hospital for medical check up. He (P.W.12) was led by

the accused person to his house on 21.8.2008 at 8'30 P.M. and the

accused pointed out the 'khukri' by means of which he caused the

incident. Then he seized the said 'khukri. On 22.9.2008, injured Ananda

Bora and Smti. Niju Bora appeared before the police station. He sent

them to the court for recording their statements u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. On

6.11.2008, injured Manash Bora after recovery from his injury, appeared

before the police station. On 21.8.2009, he received the post mortem

examination report of the deceased Bashab Bora @ Rantu Bora. He

received the ejahar Ext-1 on 19.8.2008 at night of about 1 A.M. in the

place of occurrence. Ext-1 is the ejahar, upon which Ext-1(2) is his

signature with remarks. Ext-7 is the printed FIR form filled up by him,

upon which Ext-7(1) and Ext-7(2) are his signatures. Ext-2 is the

inquest report upon which Ext-2(2) is his signature. Ext-3 is the seizure

list seizing of 'khukri' (the weapon of offence), upon which Ext-3(4) is

his signature. Ext-3(5) is the signature of accused Ranjit Bora. M. Exts-

1, 2 and 3 respectively are the 'khukri', long pant and half shirt. Ext-3(6)

is his signature and Ext-3(7) is the signature of accused Ranjit Bora.

Ext-6 is the seizure list seizing of green colour full chain cover having

carrier on the back side of one bicycle as pointed out by the accused

person. Ext-6(3) is his signature and Ext-6(4) is the signature of accused

Ranjit Borah. M. Ext-4 is the said bicycle. Ext-8 is the dead body

forwarding challan, upon which Ext-8(1) is his signature. Ext-9 is the

sketch map of the place of occurrence, upon which Ext-9(1) is his

signature. Ext-10 is the accused forwarding letter, upon which Ext-10(1)

is his signature. On 21.8/2008, he (P.W.12) seized articles along with the

12

seizure list to the Court for seeing. Ext-11 is the prayer for seeing the

seizure list and the exhibits upon which Ext-11(1) is his signature. He

had confirmed the statement as given by the hostile witness P..2 Diganta

Bora u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. by stating in the following way :-

“ He saw when accused Ranjit Bora along with police

arrived in front of a jungle and accused person brought out

one 'khukri', a pair of long pant and shirt and one shirt

stained with mud from the jungle and handed over to the

police. He heard when accused Ranjit Bora stated to the

police that on 18.8.2008, he killed Bashab Bora by

inflicting cut injury.”

P.W.9 Nanda Hazarika has been declared as hostile witness

as he resiled from his previous statement as recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C.

The prosecution has confirmed that his statement as recorded u/s 161 of

Cr.P.C. by P.W.12. The I.O., P.W.12 has stated that P.W.9 Nanda

Hazarika has deposed before him in the following way -

“Nanda Hazarika (P.W.9) has stated before him that when

the accused Ranjit Bora was proceeding ahead, police

followed him. Accused Ranjit Bora brought out one

'khukri', one blue colour long pant, and one brown colour

rolling shirt from the jungle situated in front of his house.

He accompanied him and he saw when accused Ranjit

Bora brought out said articles.”

In cross examination,P.W.12 has denied the suggestion put

by the defence that he did not receive the ejahar Ext-1 in the place of

incident. He has admitted that he reached the place of incident at night

of about 10 P.M. and interrogated the witnesses Ananda Bora, Atul

Bora, Bhoben Bora, Dilip Bora and Bijoya Bora. At night of about 11'40

P.M., he prepared the inquest over the dead body of the deceased

on the basis o the GDE prepared by him after receiving the telephonic

information on the same night at around 9'20 P.M. He did not enquire

13

who had given him the telephonic information. In Ext-7, the Printed FIR

form, he (P.W.12) recorded of receiving of the ejahar on 19.8.2008 at

around 3 A.M. During the course of investigation, on the same night of

the occurrence, he received the ejahar in the place of incident and the

police had treated the said ejahar as FIR in this case. There is no chance

of fabricating the FIR. It is true that the certified copy of the General

Diary Entry has not been shown to him by the prosecution.

22. P.W.13 S.I. of police Sri Ruhindra Nath Changmai has

deposed in evidence that the earlier Investigating Officer (P.W.12)

investigated into this case vide Dergaon P.S. Case No. 200/08 u/s

302/326 of IPC. Only the injury report is remained to be collected. He

collected the injury report and after perusal of the case diary in the

instant case, he satisfied that the investigation has already been

completed. He found the materials for the offence u/s 457/302/326 of

IPC against accused Ranjit Bora and accordingly, he submitted the

charge sheet under the said sections against the accused persons. Ext-12

is the charge sheet, upon which Ext-12(1) is his signature

In cross examination, P.W.13 has stated that he did not

record in the case diary from where he collected the injury report of the

injured persons.

23. P.W.14 Sri Bhupen Kalita, S.I. of police of Dergaon police

station has deposed in evidence that at present he is working at Dergaon

police station as S.I. of police. He submitted the extract copy of th

Dergaon P.S. GDE No.468, dated 18.8.2008. Ext-13 is the said extract

copy of the said GDE No. 468, dated 18.8.2008. Ext-13(1) is his

signature. According to the said GDE No. 468, dated 18.8.2008, at 9'20

P.M., the O/C of Dergaon police station received a telephonic

information that a little earlier in the house of Sri Ananda Bora, located

near 'Namghar' (prayer house) of Bhakatia gaon Sri Bashab Bora was

killed by accused Ranjit Bora of the same village after causing injured to

three other persons and then the accused fled away. After preparing the

GDE No. 468, dated 18.8.2008, the information has been given to the

Superintendent of Police, Golaghat over telephone and then O/C Sri

14

Biren Borgohain of Dergaon police station accompanied with other

police personnel, namely – Rajib Baruah, Deba Saikia and constable

Sanjib gogoi proceeded to the place of incident.

In cross examination, P.W.14 has denied the suggestion that

Ext-13 is not the copy of original GDE No. 468, dated 18.8.2008.

24. D.W. 1 Sri Ranjit Bora adduced his evidence u/s 315 of

Cr.P.C. as defence witness. According to his evidence, on 18.8.2008, at

9'30 A.M., he was working as mason in the house of Sri Biren Sarmah

located at Habungia village of Dergaon. He was constructing an Assam

Type house for said Biren Sarmah. At that time, Biren Sarmah was

inspecting his work. Bashab Bora of Bhakatia gaon came to him and

told him that while returning home, enter into the house of Ananda Bora

for taking money which he owed to him. Anada Bora was working with

him as helper of mason for last 8 yeas. He borrowed the amount of

Rs.5,000/- from accused Ranjit Bora for purchasing a bullock.

Therefore, Ananda Bora called him to take the said money. In the

evening after finishing the work, D.W.1 while returning home by riding

his bicycle. On the way, he reached the gateway of the house of Ananda

Bora at around 7'30 P.M. At that time, it was drizzling. He (D.W.1)

called Ananda Bora from outside. Then Niju Bora, the wife of Ananda

Bora opened the door and offered him a plastic chair for sitting. At that

time, a kerosene lamp was burning inside the room where he was sitting.

Nijumoni Bora after offering him to sit, proceeded inside the house. At

that time, Ananda Bora and Bashab Bora were talking between

themselves by sitting near the furnace. Nijumoni Bora offered him a

cup of tea. While he was sipping tea, then Ananda Bora and Bashab

Bora fell him down from the chair from his back side. While he tried to

stand-up, then he saw Bashab Bora intended to inflict him injury by a

'khukri'. Then he in order to escape himself, snatched away the 'khukri'

from Bashab Bora and for saving himself, he waved the said 'khukri' in

the air. In the mean time, the said burning kerosene lamp was

extinguished. D.W.1 further deposed in his evidence that the burning

lamp was extinguished after snatching away the 'khukri' from Bashab

15

Bora. When he waved the 'khukri' in the air, either Anada Bora or

Bashab Bora sustained cut injury on their person. D.W.1 has further

stated that he also sustained injury on both of his leg while snatching

away the 'khukri' from the hands of Bashab Bora. He has further stated

that he has no previous grudge against Bashab Bora and Ananda Bora.

Thereafter, he came out from the room with the said 'khukri' and threw

the said 'khukri' by the side of the road and proceeded to his house by

riding on his bicycle. After keeping the said bicycle near the gate of his

house, he proceeded to Golaghat town on foot and arrived at Golaghat

police station on the next day at 7 or 7'30 A.M. Thereafter, he narrated

the incident to the police station. Police from Dergaon police station

came to Golaghat police station on the next day and took him to

Dergaon police station. He has further stated that while he was

proceeding to his house by riding bicycle from the house of Ananda

Bora, he did not came across any person on the way. He has further

deposed that he is not responsible for the injury sustained by Ananda

Bora and Bashab Bora. D.W.1 has also stated that had he not been

snatched the 'khukri' from the hands of Bashab Bora and waved in the

air, then Bashab Bora would kill him.

In cross examination by the prosecution, D.W.1 has stated

that he could not say how Nijumoni Bora sustained injury. He has

further stated that he could not say as to whether the deceased Bashab

Bora used to do tuition to the son of Ananda Bora or not. D.W.1 further

stated that he was produced before the Court on 21.8.2008. But he did

not stated before the Court regarding sustaining of injury on his legs.

Police after arresting him, produced him to the hospital for medical

check up. But he did not state to the Doctor regarding sustaining of

injury by him. He after commission of the offence, kept his bicycle in

front of the gate of his house and without giving any information to his

family members, he proceeded to Golaghat on foot. On the way, he

found Dhekial police Out Post. But he did not go there. After the

incident, he proceeded to Golaghat on foot and reached Golaghat on the

next morning. He wondered at Golaghat town for the whole day on

16

19.8.2008, but he did not go to the Doctor for the treatment of his

injury sustained by him on his legs. In examination in chief, D.W.1

Ranjit Bora has stated that he sustained injury on both of his legs while

snatching the 'khukri' from the hands of Bashab Bora.

25. Had he (D.W.1) got injury on his leg, then he would have

taken treatment from the Doctor. But he did not do so. It is also found

from the evidence of D.W.1 that after the incident, he proceeded to

Golaghat town on foot covering a long distance. If he actually sustained

injury on his leg, he could not move to Golaghat on foot. Therefore, the

plea of the accused person (D.W.1) that he sustained injury on both of

his legs while snatching the 'khukri' from the hands of Bashab Bora is

appears to be not believable. The plea of the accused is that Ananda

Bora and Bashab Bora intended to kill him by giving 'khukri' blow.

Therefore, he snatched away the 'khukri' from the hands of Bashab Bora

and waved the said 'khukri' in the air in order to save himself from

Bashab Bora and Ananda Bora.

26. D.W.2 Sri Biren Sarmah in whose house, the accused Ranjit

Bora (D.W.1) was working on the relevant date has deposed in evidence

that one day, during the month of August, 2008, while accused Ranjit

Bora (D.W.1) was working with three other labourers in his house, the

deceased Bashab Bora arrived there at around 10 A.M. and told the

accused that he would pay the money to him which he owed to him in

the house of Ananda Bora (P.W.6). The accused Ranjit Bora went there

after finishing his work on that day.

In cross examination, D.W.2 has admitted that Bashab Bora

owed money to the accused person. But according to the D.W.1 (accused

person), injured P.W.6 Ananda Bora owed money to him and not the

deceased Bashab Bora. Injured P.W.6 Ananda Bora is not known to him

(D.W.2).

27. Under such circumstances, the fact of appearance of

deceased Bashab Bora in the house of D.W.2 Biren Sarmah and told

D.W.1 Ranjit Bora that he would repay the money in the house of P.W.6

Ananda Bora which he owed to him and asked him to visit the house of

17

P.W.6 Ananda Bora after his work are appear to be not believable,

because according to the D.W.1, Ananda Bora (P.W.6) owed money of

Rs.5,000/- to the accused person. But according to the D.W.2, the

deceased owed money to the accused person.

28. From the evidence of the accused person (D.W.1), it is

found that he went to the house of P.W.6 Ananda Bora to receive

Rs.5,000/- which P.W.6 owed to him and P.W.7 Nijumoni Bora who is

another injured and wife of P.W.6 Ananda Bora opened the door of the

house and offered a plastic chair to him (D.W.1) for sitting and then

offered him a cup of tea. P.W.6 Ananda Bora and deceased Bashab Bora

who were at that time, gossiping between themselves by sitting near the

furnace and then both P.W.6 and deceased Bashab Bora fell D.W. 1

(accused) upon the ground from the chair from back side and then

deceased Bashab Bora intended to inflict cut injury to him by a 'khukri'

and when the accused tried to stand-up, then the accused snatched the

'khukri' from him and in that process accused sustained injury on both of

his legs and waved the 'khukri' in the air. Therefore, he (D.W.1) could

not say as to whether P.W.6 Ananda Bora or deceased Bashab Bora

sustained injury or not. But he did not state anything regarding the injury

sustained by P.W.7 Nijumoni Bora, the wife of P.W.6 Ananda Bora. It is

not proved that the accused person sustained injury on both of his legs.

During the cross examination of injured P.W.7 Nijumoni Bora, the wife

of injured P.W.6 Ananda Bora, the learned defence counsel elicited from

her that a kerosene lamp was burning in the room and it was kept

burning till the morning. The defence gave suggestion to her (P.W.7) that

the lamp was extinguished during the scuffling with the deceased

Bashab Bora and P.W. 6 Ananda Bora by the accused person to which

P.W.7 denied the said suggestion. There is no preponderance of

probability that accused had sustained injury while scuffling with P.W.6

and the deceased Bashab Bora for snatching the 'khukri'. After the

incident, the accused walked a long distance for the whole night to reach

Golaghat town. He reached Golaghat town in the next morning.

Therefore, the plea of the accused is that he sustained injury on both of

18

his legs while scuffling with P.W.6 and deceased Bashab Bora is appears

to be false one. Had he been sustained injury on both of his legs, he

could not cover a long distance to reach Golaghat town from the place of

incident. Therefore, it is inferred that there was no scuffling between the

accused from one sideand injured P.W.6 Ananda Bora and deceased

Bashab Bora on the other side.

29. P.W.7 Nijumoni Bora has stated in examination in chief that

the accused person armed with 'khukri', entered into her house after

pushing the door of the house. During cross examination, P.W.7 has

stated that the accused entered into her house with a 'khukri' in his hand

hiding on the back side and gave blow to her by the said 'khukri' and

then she raised her hand in order to save herself from the said 'khukri'

blow and in the result, the blow fell upon her hand and she sustained

injury. This fact has not been challenged by the defence during cross

examination of P.W.7 nor in the evidence of the accused person recorded

u/s 315 of Cr.P.C. The defence simply suggested to P.W.7 Nijumoni

Bora that the accused did not give 'khukri' blow to her which she denied.

The defence did not challenge the fact of entering into the house of

P.W.7 by the accused person with a 'khukri' in his hand. P.W.7 has stated

in cross examination that she did not offer chair to the accused person

nor she opened the door of the house for the accused person. It is proved

that the accused Ranjit Bora carrying a 'khukri' in his hand, entered into

the house of P.W.7 after pushing the door.

30. When we perused the cross examination of P.W.6 Ananda

Bora, we find that P.W.6 has good relation with the accused person

about 8 years back prior to the incident and prior to the occurrence, he

(P.W.6) took Rs.5,000/- from the accused person. At the time of

occurrence, a lamp made of medicine bottle was burning in the room

(place of occurrence). When we perused the evidence of P.W.6, we find

that the accused person entered into the room and inflicted cut injury on

his wife Nijumoni Bora (P.W.7) and his wife Nijumoni Bora came out

from the room after receiving the said injury. When P.W.6 wanted to

stand from the chair, the accused gave blow on his left cheek and then

19

the accused gave blow on the neck of Bashab Bora. In cross examination

P.W.6 has stated that he could not raise hue and cry due to receiving

blow on his mouth. His wife Nijumno Bora (P.W.7) raised hue and cry.

The accused did not challenge the fact of inflicting injury to P.W.6 and

P.W.7 in the cross examination.

31. Now for the argument shake, if we accept the version of the

accused person that the deceased intended to give 'khukri' blow to him

after he was fallen upon the ground from the plastic chair by P.W.6

Ananda Bora and the deceased Bashab Bora and he (accused) snatched

the 'khukri' from the hands of deceased Bashab Bora as the deceased

Bashab Bora intended to give 'khukri' blow to him, there was no

occasion for the accused person that he had apprehension that the death

or grievous hurt or wrongfully confining him will otherwise be

consequence of assault from the deceased, because the accused had

already snatched away the 'khukri' from the hands of the deceased

Bashab Bora. The accused person has further stated that he waved the

'khukri' in the air in the darkness and therefore, he could not say who

had sustained injury in that process. D.W.1 did not state anything about

the presence or absence of the P.W.7 during scuffling with P.W.6 and the

deceased.

32. In the instant case, I find that P.W.6 sustained cut injury on

his left cheek ; P.W.7 sustained injury on her both hands and deceased

Bashab Bora sustained injury on his neck. Bashab Bora died on the spot.

The injury sustained by P.W.6 and P.W.7 are not accidental injury and

death of deceased Bashab Bora is not the accidental death. When the

accused waved the 'khukri' in the air, P.W.7 Nijumoni Bora was not

present there. It is not known to the accused person how P.W.7 sustained

injury. It is found that the P.W.7 sustained amputation at right thumb and

little ring finger and incised wound of the right middle finger in the said

incident.

33. In course of argument, the learned counsel for the accused

person has cited a case law decided by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court

in the case of – Jamshed Ali & others -Vs- State of Assam, reported in

20

(2013) 4 NEJ 37 (Gau.), wherein, the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court has

observed in the following way -

“ If a person has a right of private defence of body under

Section 97, the right extend under Section 100 to causing

death if there is reasonable apprehension that death or

grievous hurt would be consequence of the assault. It is

true that the burden on an accused person to establish the

plea of self defence is not as onerous as the one which lies

on the prosecution and that while the prosecution is

requires to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the

accused need not establish the plea to the hilt and may

discharge his onus by establishing a mere preponderance

of probability either by lying basis for that plea in the cross

examination of prosecution witnesses or by adducing

defence evidence .”

34. In the instant case, I find that the accused snatched the

'khukri' from the hands of Bashab Bora. There was no other weapon in

the hands of Bashab Bora or in the hands of P.W.6 Ananda Bora. The

accused did not state that the P.W.7 was present at that moment.

Therefore, there was no reasonable apprehension of death or grievous

hurt would be consequence of the assault in the minds of the accused

person. He exceeded the right of private defence by giving blow to

P.W.6 Ananda Bora on his right cheek and on the neck of Bashab Bora

causing him spot death. Prior to that he gave blow to P.W.7 Smti.

Nijumoni Bora, the wife of P.W.6 Ananda Bora. She (P.W.7) raised her

hand in order to escape from the said blow. The blow fell upon her hand

causing amputation on her right thumb, left ring finger and incised

wound of right middle ring finger. It is found, at first the accused gave

blow to the P.W.7 with a 'khukri' and the P.W.7 fled away from the room

after receiving the blow.

35. To claim the right of private defence extending to

voluntarily causing of death, the accused must show that there were

21

circumstances giving rise to reasonable ground for apprehending that

either death or grievous hurt would be caused to him. In this case, the

accused person has failed to do so. Therefore, there is no question of

exercise of private defence as claimed by the accused person

considering circumstances of this case.

36. From the aforesaid evidence, it is found that P.W.6 Ananda

Borah and P.W.7 Smti. Nijumoni Bora are husband and wife. P.W.6 has

good relation with the accused person from about 8 years back prior to

the occurrence. P.W.6 Ananda Bora was working together with the

accused Ranjit Bora as mason. P.W.6 and P.W.7 have no enmity against

the accused person. The statements of P.W.6 and P.W.7 had recorded u/s

164 of Cr.P.C. during investigation stage by the learned Court. The

learned defence counsel Mr. D.J. Borah has submitted that their

statements have not been proved by examining the Magistrate, who

recorded their statements.

37. The statements of P.W.6 Ananda Bora and P.W.7 Niju Bora

as recorded u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. during investigation stage are not to be

used as substantial evidence. These statements can be used only for

contradiction. The learned defence counsel could not point out any

contradiction between the testimony of P.W.6 and P.W.7 with reference

to their previous statements as recorded u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. by the learned

Magistrate. When we read together the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.7, we

find that at the time of incident, at around 8/8'30 P.M., both of them

were present in their house and Bashab Bora (since deceased) was

tutoring their son Sri Biplabjyoti Bora who was then student of Class-II.

P.W.6 Ananda Bora was sitting on the chair with his two years old baby

in his lap. All these facts have not been challenged during cross

examination of P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 by the defence. At that time, a

kerosene oil lamp made of medicine bottle was burning in the room and

the said lamp was burning till the morning. Suddenly, accused Ranjit

Bora entered into the said room by pushing the door and at first, he gave

blow to P.W. 7 Niju Bora with a 'khukri' brought by him and then P.W.7

Niju Bora after receiving the said blow rushed to the house of her uncle

22

Atul Bora (P.W.1) shouting “dada”, “dada” and she became senseless

when she reached the house of Atul Borah. P.W.7, Niju Bora did not see

the incident of inflicting cut injury to her husband Ananda Bora (P.W.6)

and Bashab Bora (since deceased). The evidence of P.W.7 Niju Bora has

not been contradicted during her lengthy cross examination. P.W.7

sustained injury on the both palms of her hands and her right thumb and

left ring finger had amputated. P.W.5 Dr. Bipul Baruah on the same day,

i.e. on 18.8.2008, at around 10'30 P.M., examined Smti. Nijumoni Borah

at Dergaon CHC and found amputation of her right thumb, amputation

of left ring finger and incised wound of right middle finger. The defence

did not challenge the aforesaid findings of P.W.5 during his cross

examination. The Doctor, P..5 did not give opinion regarding the nature

of injury. But it is proved that the injuries as sustained by P.W.7 Niju

Borah were caused by sharp cutting weapon and this is a clear case u/s

326 of IPC as the Doctor (P.W.5) found amputation on her right thumb

and left ring finger. The P.W.7 has stated in her evidence that one portion

of her right thumb has been severed in the result of 'khukri' blow given

by accused Ranjit Bora. The evidence of P.W.7 is corroborated by the

medical evidence (P.W.5).

38. It is also found in the evidence of P.W. 6 Ananda Bora, the

husband of P.W.7 Niju Bora that when Niju Bora (P.W.7) left for the

house of her uncle Atul Bora (P.W.1) after receiving the 'khukri' blow

from accused Ranjit Bora and when he (P.W.6) about to rise from the

chair, the accused Ranjit Bora gave blow on his left cheek by the 'khukri'

and then when P.W.6 about to come out from the house after receiving

the said injury, the accused gave blow on the neck of Bashab Bora and

on seeing this incident, his son Biplabjyoti Bora ran away from there.

From this part of evidence of P.W.6 Ananda Bora, it is found that he saw

when accused Ranjit Bora giving 'khukri' blow on the neck of Bashab

Bora. No contradiction has been come out during the cross examination

of P.W.6. P.W.5 Dr. Bipul Baruah examined P.W.6 Ananda Borah on the

same day of the incident at around 10'30 P.M. at Dergaon CHC and

found incised wound over the left cheek extending from mandibular to

23

ramus, size – 8Cm. X '5Cm. The findings of P.W.5 Dr. Bipul Baruah in

respect of the injury sustained by P.W.6 Ananda Bora has not been

challenged by the defence. The medical evidence supported the version

of P.W.6 in respect of the injury sustained by him. I find no ground to

disbelieve the evidence of P.W.6. The defence could not point out any

fact which belied the testimony of both P.W.6 and P.W.7.

39. Here, we find that P.W.6 Ananda Bora has sustained simple

cut injury caused by sharp weapon. The accused Ranjit Bora had caused

the said incident. The offence u/s 324 of IPC is clearly made out against

the accused person.

40. Bashab Bora (since deceased) who received cut injury on

his neck in the house of P.W.6 and P.W.7 succumbed to the injury. P.W.1

Atul Bora found the dead body of Bashab Bora lying near the edge of

the varandah of house of P.W.6. The evidence of P.W.6 that he saw

giving of cut blow on the neck of Bashab Bora by accused Ranjit Bora

has not been challenged by the defence during cross examination except

putting some suggestions to P.W.6 which have been denied by him. The

Police (P.W.12) prepared the inquest over the dead body of deceased

Bashab Bora. Ext-2 is the inquest report prepared by the police in

presence of P.W.1 Atul Bora. As per Ext-2, the inquest report, police

found the dead body of Bashab Bora lying on the edge of the varandah

of the house of P.W.6 Ananda Bora with cut injury on the left side of the

neck in a pool of blood. Except this injury, no other injury found on the

body of the deceased Bashab Bora. The contents of the inquest report

vide Ext-2 has not been challenged by the defence. Ext-4, the post

mortem examination report of the deceased Bashab Bora prepared by

Dr. Neelima Phukan (P.W.3) has supported the prosecution case in

respect of injury sustained by the deceased. P.W.3 Dr. Neelima Phukan

opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to shock and

haemorrhage as a result of sharp cutting injury over the left side of the

neck in oblique direction from upward to downward direction from 6th

and 7th cervical vertebrae to left side of the Thirod cartilages cutting of

soft tissues, muscles and pleat vassals of the left side, size – 10 Cm. X

24

7Cm. X 5 Cm. The opinion of Doctor,P.W.3 has not been challenged or

disputed by the defence.

41. From the evidence of P.W.6 Ananda Bora and P.W.7 Smti.

Niju Borah, it is proved that accused Ranjit Bora entered into the house

of P.W.6 Ananda Bora and inflicted cut injury to him, to his wife Smti.

Niju Bora (P.W.7) and Bashab Bora with a 'khukri' and Bashab Bora

succumbed to the injury on the same day. P.W.7 rushed to the house of

her uncle Atul Bora (P.W.1) followed by P.W.6 Ananda Bora. Both P.W.6

and P.W.7 were shifted to Dergaon CHC for medical treatment. It is true

that the prosecution did not examine the son of P.W.6 Ananda Bora who

was at that time showing his mark-sheet of half yearly examination to

his tutor Bashab Bora (since deceased). None examination of the said

boy as witness, does not belie the aforesaid direct, clear and substantial

evidence.

42. After causing the occurrence in the house of P.W.6, the

accused left the place. P.W.8 Manash Bora subsequent to the said

occurrence, found the accused Ranjit Bora on the way coming on riding

bicycle and when he gave a call to the accused, then the accused

inflicted cut injury on the right ear of P.W.8 Manash Bora. Thereafter,

P.W.8 ran away from there to the house of P.W.9 Nanda Hazarika and

then he came to know that after attacking Bashab Bora, the accused

person came out from the house of P.W.6 Ananda Bora and inflicted cut

injury to him.

43. Here also we find that P.W.8 Manash Bora has supported

the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.8 has not been rebutted

in cross examination. The evidence of P.W.8 has been supported by the

evidence of P.W.9 Nanda Hazarika, P.W.10 Ratul Bora and P.W.11

Ranjit Borah who are the seizure witnesses. They saw when police

seized the bicycle from the house of the accused person.

44. After collective reading of the evidence of P.W.1 Atul Bora

and P.W.12, S.I. of police Biren Borgohain, it is found that P.W.12

reached the place of incident at 10 P.M. on 18.8.2008 after receiving the

telephonic information. When the police officer received the ejahar, Ext-

25

1 on the same night after 12 P.M., the following date is mentioned as

1 A.M of 19.8.2008 and when the police officer reached the police

station, he registered the said ejahar at 3 A.M. of 19.8.2008. More over,

the evidence of P.W.12 and from Ext-7 the printed FIR form prepared by

the police officer at the time of registration of the case shows that it was

received by the police on the same night at 3 A.M. on 19.8.2008. The

FIR was received only from P.W.1 and none of the prosecution

witnesses was confronted with the FIR by the defence nor any question

was put to them regarding the time of making the FIR. The FIR was

sufficiently clear in respect of the name of the accused, name of the

deceased, names of the injured persons, place of occurrence and time of

occurrence. The FIR was not at all subjected to scrutinize by the

defence at any time. Hence, the FIR does not suffer from any mischief

and it is a valid piece of material evidence duly supported by oral

evidence. P.W.7 Nijumoni Bora rushed to the house of the informant

P.W.1 immediately after the incident followed by P.W.6 Ananda Bora.

Therefore, P.W.1 has no sufficient knowledge about the incident. When

P.W.1 went to the place of incident, he saw Bashab Bora lying dead.

P.W.6 saw inflicting of cut injury on the neck of Bashab Bora by the

accused. Ext-3 is the seizure list prepared by the Investigating Officer

(P.W.12) while in seizing one 'Khukri', one blue coloured long pant and

one earth coloured pant from the jungle situated in front of the house of

the accused on pointing out by the accused person. The defence did not

challenge the contents of Ext-3, the seizure list.

45. Another point raised by the prosecution is that the accused

person after the incident, absconded from his house. Therefore, the

police officer (P.W.12) did not find him in his house. On 20.8.2008, at

around 9'20 A.M., P.W.12 received a telephonic call from Golaghat

police station that the accused Ranjit Bora had surrendered before the

said police station on the previous night at around 9/10 P.M. and he was

apprehended by P.W.12. This is the another circumstances u/s 8(i) of the

Indian Evidence Act as after commission of the crime, the accused

absconded from the place of occurrence and from his house. This

26

relevant circumstances is in favour of the prosecution.

46. From the aforesaid appreciation of the evidence, it is found

that on 18.8.2008, at 8'30 P.M., accused Ranjit Bora armed with

'Khukri', entered into the house of P.W.6 Ananda Bora to commit the

offence. The offence u/s 451 of IPC is clearly made out against the

accused person. Initially, the accused was charged u/s 459 of IPC. But

the said offence is not proved. The offence u/s 451 of IPC is minor in

relation to the offence u/s 459 of IPC. Therefore, the accused is not

prejudiced, if he is convicted u/s 451 of IPC though he was not charged

under the said section of offence.

47. A kerosene lamp made of medicine bottle was burning in

the room of P.W.6 Ananda Bora. At that time, the family members of

P.W.6, i.e. he himself, his wife P.W.7 Nijumoni Borah, their 7 years old

son and Bashab Bora (since deceased) were present. Accused Ranjit

Bora entered into the room and at first, he gave fatal blow to P.W.7

Nijumoni Bora and when Nijumoni Bora left the room, the accused gave

'Khukri' blow to P.W.6 Ananda Bora on his cheek and then Bashab Bora

(since deceased) on his neck with the 'Khukri'. P.W.7 Nijumoni Borah

ran away to the house of P.W.1 Atul Bora followed by P.W.6 Ananda

Bora. P.W.6 and P.W.7 sustained cut injury on the cheek and on the

fingers of both the hands respectively and the right thumb and the left

ring finger of P.W.7 have been amputated. The offence u/s 326 of IPC is

clearly proved against the accused person.

48. P.W.6 Ananda Bora saw while the accused giving 'Khukri'

blow on the neck of Bashab Bora. P.W.3 Dr. Neelima Phukan found one

sharp cutting injury over the left side of the neck in oblique direction

from upward to downward direction from 6th and 7th cervical vertebrae

to left side of the Thirod cartilages cutting of soft tissues, muscles and

pleat vassals of the left side, size – 10 Cm. X 7Cm. X 5 Cm. According

to the opinion of Doctor, P.W.3, this injury is sufficient to cause the

death of Bashab Bora. Thus the defence could not discredit the evidence

of the prosecution on the point of injury inflicted by the accused and

sustained by the deceased.

27

49. Another point raised by the prosecution is that the accused

after the incident absconded from his house. The accused surrendered

the day after the next day of the occurrence i.e. on 20.8.2008 at Golaghat

police station, whereas, the occurrence took place in the jurisdiction of

Dergaon police station. This is the relevant circumstances u/s 8(i) of the

Indian Evidence Act in favour of the prosecution.

50. The evidence of prosecution witnesses, however, failed to

prove the motive behind the crime, and therefore, the argument has been

advanced from the side of the defence that prosecution case is most

unlikely as without any motive, the accused must not have committed

such a heinous crime. After going through the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses, I find that the motive behind the crime has not

been surfaced. None of the prosecution witnesses has stated the cause

why the accused inflicted fatal injury to the P.W.6, P.W.7 and Bashab

Bora. If there is anything, it is with the accused . The witnesses can not

be expected to prove the motive in a murder case where everything has

gone down to the soil with the buried of the deceased. There is no rule of

law or rule of prudence that the prosecution case should be rejected for

failure to prove the motive. The very mode of committing the offence

shows that the accused intended to cause the death of Bashab Bora and

accordingly, he inflicted the fatal blow on his neck with the 'Khukri'.

When the death was the intentional act of the accused, section 300 of

IPC is well attracted and the accused is accordingly, punishable u/s 302

of IPC.

51. Under the aforesaid circumstances, I find and hold that the

prosecution is able to prove the case u/s 302/326/451 of IPC against the

accused Ranjit Bora and accordingly, the accused is convicted under the

said sections of law. No separate charge u/s 324 of IPC was found at the

initial stage against the accused person according to my considered

view, the charge u/s 326 of IPC is sufficient to cover the section of 324

of IPC.

52. Before passing the sentence, I have heard the accused on

the point of sentence u/s 235(2) of Cr.P.C. The accused prays for utmost

28

leniency. I have considered that aspect. But it must not be ignored that

the act of the accused extinguished the life of the deceased throwing his

family members into the street. The catastrophy brought to the family of

the deceased can not be totally ignored while considering the victimolgy

aspect. On the other hand, the accused inflicted single blow each to

P.W.6 Ananda Bora on his cheek, P.W.7 Smti. Nijumoni Bora on the

fingers of her both hands and to Bashab Bora on his neck and Bashab

Bora succumbed to the injury. Though all murders are cruel, the mode

and manner of commission of the crime can not be termed as too

heinous. The act of the accused does not fall in the category of gravest

of grave offence and rarest of rare cases. The extreme penalty of death is

not warranted in this case. I find that a punishment for imprisonment for

life would meet the ends of justice.

53. Accordingly, I convict the accused Ranjit Bora under

section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life

and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand)only, and in

default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

Further, I convict the accused u/s 326 of IPC and sentenced him to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only, and in default of payment of

fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months. Further, I

convict the accused Ranjit Bora u/s 451 of IPC and sentenced him to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/- ( Rupees one thousand) only, and in default of payment of

fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months. The

sentences shall run concurrently.

54. The seized articles are to be destroyed in due course of

time.

55. Furnish a copy of the judgment and order to the convict-

accused with free of costs immediately.

56. P.W.6 Sri Ananda Bora and P.W.7 Smti. Nijumoni Bora

suffered fatal injury caused by the accused person. They expended

considerable amount as medical expenses for their medical treatment.

29

P.W.7 Nijumoni Bora has been remaining in the hospital for the period

of one and half months. Her right hand became invalid due to

amputation of right thumb. Her left hand also became invalid due to

amputation of left ring finger. Further, she sustained incised wound on

her right middle ring finger. Therefore, adequate compensation is

requires to be made to her for her rehabilitation. Her husband Ananda

Bora (P.W.6) has also sustained incised wound over his left cheek

extending from mandibular angle to Ramus, size – 8Cm. X '5Cm. He is

also to be compensated adequately. The deceased Bashab Bora, aged

about 32 years old died on the spot in the result of the said incident. His

dependents have suffered substantial loss due to death of the deceased.

Therefore, the dependents of the deceased Bashab Bora are requires to

be adequately compensated for their rehabilitation.

57. Hence, a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the

Chairman of District Legal Services Authority, Golaghat for

determination of the compensation to be paid to the injured, as well as

dependents of the deceased from the Victim Compensation Fund.

58. The judgment and order is pronounced and delivered in the

open Court today.

Given under my hand and seal of the Court on this the 20th

day of September, 2014.

( T. Lohar ),

SESSIONS JUDGE,

GOLAGHAT.

APPENDIX :

WITNESSES FOR THE PROSECUTION :

1. P.W.1 - Sri Atul Bora.

2. P.W.2 - Sri Diganta Bora.

3. P.W.3 - Dr. Neelima Phukan, M.O.

30

4. P.W.4 - Sri Sanjib Bora.

5. P.W.5 - Dr. Bipul Baruah, M.O.

6. P.W.6 - Sri Ananda Bora.

7. P.W.7 - Smti. Niju Bora.

8. P.W.8 - Sri Manash Bora.

9. P.W.9 - Sri Nanda Hazarika.

10. P.W.10 - Sri Ratul Bora.

11. P.W.11 - Sri Ranjit Bora.

12. P.W.12 - Sri Biren Borgohain,I.O.

13. P.W.13 - Sri Ruhindra Nath Changmai, I.O.

14. P.W.14 - Sri Bhupen Kalita.

EXHIBITS FOR THE PROSECUTION :

1. Ext-1 - Ejahar.

2. Ext-2 - Inquest report.

3. Ext-3 - Seizure list.

4. Ext-4 - Post mortem examination report.

5. Ext-5 - Injury report.

6. Ext-6 - Seizure list.

7. Ext-6(A)- Statement recorded u/s 164 of Cr.P.C.

8. Ext-7 - Printed FIR form.

9. Ext-8 - Dead body forwarding challan.

10. Ext-9 - Sketch map of the place of occurrence.

11. Ext-10 - Accused forwarding letter.

12. Ext-11 - Prayer for seeing the seizure list & exhibits.

13. Ext-12 - Charge sheet.

14. M. Ext- 1 - One 'Khukri'

15. M. Ext- 2 - One long pant.

16. M. Ext-3 - One half shirt.

17. M. Ext-4 - One bicycle.

31

WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENCE :-

1. D.W. 1 - Sri Ranjit Bora.

2. D.W. 2 - Sri Biren Sarmah.

EXHIBITS FOR THE DEFENCE :- NIL.

Dictated & Corrected

by me.

( T. Lohar ),

SESSIONS JUDGE,

GOLAGHAT.

Dictation taken & transcribed

by me:-S. Borpatra, Steno.