Gauhati High Court
Mohanlal Chauhan vs The State Of Assam on 12 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 GAU 462
Author: Suman Shyam
Bench: Suman Shyam, Hitesh Kumar Sarma
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010287132018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRL.A(J) 121/2018
1:MOHANLAL CHAUHAN
S/O. SRI GIRIDHARILAL CHAUHAN, VILL. NO. 2 LAMBAPATHAR, P.S.
KHERONI, DIST. KARBI ANGLONG.
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY PP, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : SRI UJJAL CHOUDHURY, AMICUS CURIAE
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA
Date of hearing and judgement : 12/02/2020.
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Suman Shyam, J
1. Heard Mr. U. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant. We have also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the respondent no.1. None has appeared for the respondent no.2 despite service of notice.
2. The sole appellant in this case has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing homicidal death of his wife Golasia Devi and sentenced to undergo rigorous Page No.# 2/6 imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default whereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months.
3. The prosecution case, as unfolded during the trial, is that on 18/06/2012 at around 5 p.m., the accused had hacked his wife Smt Golasia Devi with a "bothi dao" following a domestic quarrel between them. The accused had inflicted multiple cut injuries on the body of the victim which had led to her death. On 19/06/2012, the father of the victim i.e. Shri Ram Nihar Chauhan had lodged an FIR with the Bokoliaghat Police Station reporting the incident. Upon receipt of the ejahar, Bokoliaghat Police Station case No. 22/2012 was registered under Section 302 of the IPC and the matter was taken up for investigation. Upon completion of investigation, the Police had laid charge sheet under Section 302 of the IPC against the accused. Since the accused has pleaded innocence, the matter was sent up for trial.
4. In this case, the prosecution side had examined as many as 11 (eleven) witnesses which included 2 (two) eye witness viz. PWs 10 and 11. The statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he had denied the circumstances put to him. The accused has, however, not adduced any evidence in his defence.
5. The PW-1 Sri Ram Nihar Chauhan is the informant in this case and in his deposition he has stated that the accused is his son-in-law and he used to live at Chauhan Basti along with his daughter Golasia Devi i.e. the wife of the accused. The marriage between the accused and Golasia Devi was solemnized about 12 years before the date of occurrence and she lived with her husband. According to the PW-1, 3 (three) girl child were born to the accused and the deceased out of their wedlock. On the day of the incident, the PW-1, besides his wife and 12 years old daughter Sangita, were present at home when the victim Golasia Devi has reached his home and informed him that she had to flee away from her husband's house. On further query, the PW-1 could come to know from his daughter that she had been subjected to physical assault by her husband which had caused some injuries on her body. After about two hours of his daughter's reaching home, her husband Mohanlal had also reached his house. Then he asked his daughter and son-in-law not to quarrel anymore and live peacefully and thereafter, he along with his wife Kalawati left home for cultivating and also to cut grass for cows in the nearby area leaving behind his 12 years old daughter Sangita at home along with his son-in-law and the victim daughter. One or one and a half hours later, his daughter Sangita came running and told that his son-in-law Mohanlal i.e. the accused, had hacked his wife. Upon hearing the same, the PW-1 along with his wife rushed to their house and saw the dead body of his daughter Golasia lying in the floor with cut injuries on her head and neck. PW-1 had also stated that he saw a "bothi" dao used Page No.# 3/6 to cut vegetables lying near the dead body. On raising hue and cry, nearby villagers including the Gaonburah had reached his place. At that time the accused had tried to escape but the villagers had caught hold of him and informed the Police. Later on, the Police came and held inquest over the dead body in is presence and seized the "bothi dao". The dead body of Golasia Devi was later on sent for post-mortem examination at the Diphu Civil Hospital. During his cross examination, no question/suggestion was put to the witness with a view to impeach his aforesaid testimony.
6. PWs 10 and 11 are the most important witnesses in this case and both of them have seen the accused hacked the deceased with a "bothi dao".
7. PW-10 Smt. Nandita Chauhan is the sister of the deceased and she had deposed that on the day of occurrence, at about 3 p.m. she had returned from Dhanpatti Chouhan School and was changing her school uniform in her room. At that time, hearing her elder sister (deceased) scream, she came out and saw that the accused was hacking her in her face and neck with a "muthi dao"
which is used for chopping vegetables. PW-10 has further stated that she saw her sister falling down on the ground. Thereafter, she ran out of the house out of fear and the accused also went out. Later on, the villagers caught hold of the accused and tied him outside the house. PW-10 has categorically stated that she had witnessed the accused hacking her sister to death with a "muthi dao". The said testimony of the witness was, however, not assailed by the defence side during her cross examination.
8. Likewise, PW-11 Ms. Dhanpawi Chouhan, who is a neighbor of PW-10, had also deposed before the Court that on the day of incident when she had sat down to take her meal after changing her school uniform, she heard a scream from her uncle's house. On reaching there, she saw the accused hacking the deceased with a "muthi dao". At that time, the accused came out of the room where his wife was and kept on hacking the deceased on different parts of her body. Then the victim fell down on the ground outside her room. PW-11 has further stated that at that time, seeing the occurrence she started shouting and took away the three children of the accused and the deceased out from the house. Then she saw the accused fleeing the place by taking a long handled "muthi dao' used in committing the crime. At that time, people from the neighbourhood had gathered there hearing her scream, caught hold of the accused and kept him tied outside the house. During her cross examination, PW-11 has stated that at the time of occurrence, she was at home and hearing the deceased shouting "bachao-bachao" she went to the place of occurrence and upon reaching there, saw the accused hacking the deceased. She then took away the three children out of the house. At that time, there were no other person at home except the deceased, the accused, their three children and the PW-10 Nandita.
Page No.# 4/6
9. From a careful examination of the evidence of PWs 10 and 11, it clearly transpires that both the witnesses were present at the place of occurrence and had seen the accused hack the deceased with a "muthi dao", causing multiple injuries on her body. Therefore, PWs 10 and 11 can safely be treated as eye witnesses to the incident. As such, there is direct evidence lead by the prosecution side in this case to establish the fact that it is none other than the accused who had assaulted his wife with a sharp weapon leading to her death.
10. PW-6 Dr. Borsing Rongpi is the doctor on duty at the Diphu Civil Hospital, who had conducted the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased. As per the doctor's report, there were multiple clean cut injuries in the face scalp, right eyeball, multiple clean cut laceration on the right hand side shoulder with gapping which were superficial to deep. The doctor has clearly opined that the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and the death was caused due to hemorrhage and shock following multiple cut injuries caused by sharp weapon. Therefore, the testimony of PW-6 establishes the fact that the deceased had suffered a homicidal death.
11. PW-2 Shri Khargeswar Bordoloi is the I.O. in this case and he has deposed to the effect that on the day of the incident i.e. 18/06/2012, one Ram Bali Chauhan had informed him over phone that the accused Mohanlal had committed murder of his wife with a "bothi dao" at their village at Chauhan Basti. Immediately on receiving the information, he had made GD entry and proceeded to the place of occurrence and reached there at about 6-45 p.m. when he found a blood coated woman's dead body in front of the house of Ram Nihar Chauhan and Ram Senehi Chauhan. The dead body was identified by Ram Nihar Chauhan, i.e. father of the victim and the "bothi dao" lying beside the dead body, was also seized by him. The I.O. has confirmed that Ext. 2 is the seizure list of the "bothi daoo" and Ext. 4 is the sketch map of the place of occurrence prepared by him. Later on, he had arrested the accused. The PW-2 has also stated that he had recorded the statement of the accused who had stated before him that he came to his in-law's house on 19/06/2012 to take his wife back but his wife refused to go back with him, as a result of which, a quarrel broke out between them and there-after he had killed his wife with a "bothi dao". The testimony of PW-2 had remained un-shaken during his cross examination.
12. PW-3 Ramkher Singh had deposed that after the incident, he came to the house of the informant and saw the dead body of the deceased lying in the courtyard. PW-4 Prithivilal Chauhan had deposed that on the day of occurrence he was working in the paddy field and hearing the "hullah", he went to the P.O. and saw the dead body of the deceased lying in the courtyard. He had also stated that on reaching the place of occurrence he had seen the accused fleeing away with a "bothi dao".
Page No.# 5/6 PW-5 Shri Ram Bali Chauhan has also deposed in similar line and corroborated the version given by the PW-4. Likewise, the PW-7 Bharat Singh, who also reached the place of occurrence after the incident had happened has deposed that on the day of occurrence he took the Officer-in-Charge, Bokolia and the staff in the Police Van and on reaching there, he saw one woman lying dead on the ground of the courtyard.
13. The witnesses PWs 8 and 9 had both reached the place of occurrence and seen the dead body after the incident took place. Therefore, their evidence is not of much significance in this case.
14. From a perusal of the impugned judgement and order dated 26/07/2018 passed by the learned District and Session Judge, Diphu, Karbi Anglong in Sessions Case No. 05/2013, it is apparent that the conviction of the accused is primarily based on the testimony of the three witnesses, viz. PWs 1, 10 and 11. By relying on the evidence on record, the learned trial Court had held that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charge brought against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
15. As notice above, the PWs 10 and 11 have categorically and unequivocally desposed before the Court that they had seen the accused hack the deceased with a "bothi dao". The nature of injuries recorded in the post mortem report (Ext. 10) matches the eye witnesses account. It is also established from the testimony of PW-6 that the deceased had suffered a homicidal death. It has come out from the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 4, 10 and 11 that after committing the crime, the accused had tried to flee with the knife in his hand but he was apprehended by the villagers and tied up in the house of the PW-1. The above conduct of the appellant is consistent of the theory that he had committed the crime.
16. We also find from the evidence of PW-1 that owing to some quarrel between the husband and wife, the victim had come to his place on the day of occurrence and after about one and one-half hours, the accused had also followed her in an attempt to take her back. However, the quarrel between them did not subside even at that stage, as a result of which the PW-1 had advised them not to quarrel and there-after he and his wife had left the house for the field. Later on, the dead body of the victim was found in the house of the PW-1 where the accused was also present.
17. From a meticulous scrutiny of the evidence brought on record, we find that the prosecution side has been able to establish the murder charge brought against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned trial Court had rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life as well as impose fine.
Page No.# 6/6
18. Although Mr. Choudhury has pointed out at some discrepancy in the testimony of PW-1 regarding the presence /absence of his younger daughter Sangita in the house at the time when the incident had happened, we find that the version of PW-1, in so far as the presence or absence of his daughter Sangita in the house at the time of occurrence is concerned, is well explained by PWs 10 and 11. From the evidence of PW- 1, , it transpires that having seen the accused assaulting his wife, Sangita had rushed to the field looking for her parents. It was at that stage, that the PW-10 had returned home from school and that is why in her testimony, PW-10 did not mention about the presence of Sangita. However, the fact that the PW-10, the accused, the deceased and her 3 (three) minor children were present at the house at the time of the occurrence stands fully established from the testimony of PW-11, who has stated that she had reached the place of occurrence after hearing the scream of the victim. Therefore, it is evident that although Sangita was at home on the day of the occurrence, yet, she had run out to the field to inform her parents about the happenings and the PW- 10 returned from school around the same time. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no contradiction in the testimony of the above mentioned witnesses
19. After a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, we do not find anything to hold that the assault made by the appellant was preceded by grave and sudden provocation. Mere domestic quarrel between the husband and wife, without any act of aggression on the part of the wife, in our opinion, would not qualify as grave provocation so as to trigger of violent response and assault from the husband. As such, we are unable to accept the plea raised by Mr. Choudhury that the present is a case for conversion of the conviction to one under section 304 Part-II of the IPC
20. For the reasons stated herein above, this appeal is held to be devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Send back the LCR.
JUDGE JUDGE Sukhamay Comparing Assistant