Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: IPC 448 in Kamal Dihingia vs The State Of Assam on 13 December, 2023Matching Fragments
3. On receipt of the complaint, a case was registered vide Borburuah P.s. Case No. 235/2017 under Section 448/326/325/307/34 of the IPC. Subsequently, the injured succumbed to his injuries on 18.10.2017. Then the investigation officer made a prayer before the jurisdictional magistrate to add Section 302 IPC and accordingly Section 302 IPC was added. Thereafter the investigation was initiated. During investigation the statements of the witnesses were recorded. The inquest was conducted on the dead body of the deceased and subsequently the dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination. In the course of investigation, one hammer was seized which was used at the time of commission of the crime. After completion of the investigation, having found sufficient incriminating materials against the appellant for causing death of the deceased, charge sheet was submitted against him under section 448/302 IPC. However, Page No.# 3/16 against other accused persons, i.e. Bipul Dihingia and Bikash Dadhumia, charge sheet was laid under Section 448/352/294/323/34 IPC before the Court of SDJM, Dibrugarh. As the offence under Section 302 of the IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed accordingly.
5. After hearing the argument advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, the trial court had convicted the appellant under section 302/448 IPC and other accused persons (not appellant)under Section 448 IPC and they were released under the Probation of Offenders' Act. Instead of meting out to any punishment , the accused Bipul Dihingia and Bikash Dadhumia were released after admonition . Hence, this appeal has been preferred by Kamal Dihingia against the conviction under Section 302/448 IPC.
10. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the following case law:
(2019) 6 AD (Delhi) 45, ( Saddak Hussain v-s State (NCT of Delhi)
11. In response, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that the appellant was convicted on the basis of the corroborative evidence of the witnesses, as well as the documents including the seized hammer, i.e. the weapon of offence available in the record. There are four eye witnesses including the informant to the incident. They have fully supported the case of the prosecution that the appellant is the perpetrator of the crime, who had killed the deceased by inflicting injury on his head by the said hammer. The learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302/448 IPC which needs no interference by this Court. However, learned Addl.P.P. also contended that it appears from the evidence of the witnesses that prior to the incident, there was a quarrel between the parties as such, there is a scope to convert the conviction from Section 302 IPC to 304 part-I IPC
28. After taking charge of investigation, he recorded the statement of the informant on the same day at the police station and came to know that her husband was being treated at Borburuah Hospital and immediately he went to the said hospital and interrogated the victim. On being asked, the victim stated that while he was sitting at the step of verandah of his house at night, the appellant came there and hit him with an iron hammer on his head.
29. After recording his statement, he proceeded to the place of occurrence which is the house of the victim. He drew sketch map of the place of occurrence and also recorded the statement of some other witnesses. He also seized an iron hammer from the appellant. After that the appellant along with two other accused appeared before the police station. The appellant was forwarded to the Court. However, the other two accused persons were released, as the alleged offence against them was bailable in nature. On the night of 18.10.2017, the complainant informed him that her husband had passed away. On 21.10.2017, a prayer was made before the concerned jurisdictional magistrate for adding Section 302 IPC. After completion of investigation and finding sufficient incriminating materials, he submitted charge sheet against accused Bipul Dinhingia and Bikash Dadhumia under Section 448/352/294/323 /34 IPC and the present appellant under Section 448 / 302 IPC vide Exhibit-9.