IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE : : TINSUKIA

District: Tinsukia

Present: Smti A. Devee,

Sessions Judge,
Tinsukia

Sessions Case No. 100 (T) of 2011

U/s.302/323 of the Indian Penal Code

The State of Assam………………………………………Complainant

- Versus –
Sri Raju Kalita,
S/o Late Gajen Kalita,
R/o Chengeligaon, P.S. Doom-Dooma,
District: Tinsukia (Assam)………………………….…..Accused

Appearance:

Sri B.L. Agarwalla,

Public Prosecutor………………….…...For the State
Sri P.K. Bora,
State Defence Counsel…………………For the Accused

Date of Argument: 05.05.2012 & 21.05.2012

Date of Judgment: 04.06.2012

J U D G M E N T

The accused Sri Raju Kalita has been put to trial on the charge of
intentionally causing the death of his mother-in-law on 14.4.2011 at
Chengeligaon under Doom-Dooma Police Station in the district of
Tinsukia, punishable u/s.302 of the Indian Penal Code and also causing
hurt to Smti Mun Borsaikia and Smti Lily Kalita voluntarily, punishable
u/s.323 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case, as unfolded, during trial, in brief are that on

15.4.11 the Sheristadar of Tinsukia Police Station Sri H. Chakradhara

1
informed the I/c, Talap Out Post under Doom-Dooma Police Station that
one Sarumai Sonowal of Chengeligaon was admitted to Tinsukia Civil
Hospital for medical treatment. She was injured by her son-in-law by
inflicting ‘dao’ blows. But she succumbed to the injuries. On the basis
of the said information a G.D. entry being No.341 dated 15.4.11 was
made at Talap Out Post. The police started investigation. During
investigation the police recorded the statement of witnesses, visited the
place of occurrence, made arrangement for conducting inquest over the
dead body and post mortem examination. The police arrested the
accused person and on completion of the investigation laid charge-sheet
for trial of the accused u/s.302 of the Indian Penal code. In the mean
time, during investigation the I/c received a written ejahar lodged by Sri
Akon Saikia on 16.4.11 that Sarumai Sonowal (Borsaikia) was seriously
injured by his son-in-law on 14.4.11 at about 9.30 P.M. with a dao and
she succumbed to the injuries on way to the hospital.

3. Since the offence u/s.302 I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the Court

of Sessions, Sri M.L. Das, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class committed the
case to this Court. As the accused has no capacity to engage advocate,
Sri P.K. Bora, advocate has been appointed State Defence Counsel to
defend the accused at State expenses. Upon hearing both the learned
counsels for the parties charges u/s.302/323 I.P.C. were framed. When
the charges so framed were read over and explained to the accused, he
denied committing any offence and claimed to stand trial.

4. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined 8 (eight)

witnesses. On conclusion of the evidence for the prosecution the
accused was examined u/s.313 CrPC. All the evidence – direct and
circumstantial available on the record were put to him for explanation.
He totally denied his involvement and pleaded false implication.
However, he declined to adduce evidence.

5. I have heard argument being advanced by Sri B.L. Agarwalla,

learned Public Prosecutor and Sri P.K. Bora, learned State Defence
Counsel.

6. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has

been able to prove the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable
doubt. The occurrence took place within the house of the deceased. The
accused is the son-in-law of the deceased. PW5 Smti Lily Kalita who is
the wife of the accused, had witnessed the entire episode leading to the
death of her mother. The defence could not shatter her evidence. On the
other hand, PW3 Smti Sewali (Heawalie) Sonowal and PW4 Smti Mun
Borsaikia also support the prosecution. Therefore, the accused is liable
to be held guilty of committing murder of Sarumai Borsaikia.

7. Countering the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor,

the State Defence Counsel Sri P.K. Bora strenuously contended that the
evidence of so-called eye witness Smti Lily Kalita is full of

2
exaggeration. As there was dark, according to Sri Bora, PW5 could not
see the occurrence. Her evidence, if considered minutely, would show
that the same is based on surmise and conjecture. The I.O. did not take
any step for recovery of the dao allegedly used by the accused. For non-
recovery of the dao, benefit of doubt is required to be given to the
accused. He lastly submitted that even if the accused is held guilty of
causing the death of his mother-in-law, the same was done under
intoxication. That the accused, at the relevant time, was under influence
of liquor is proved by the prosecution itself. Therefore, the accused at
best can be held guilty of committing offence u/s.304 (Part II) I.P.C.
only but not u/s.302 I.P.C.

8. On a careful scrutiny of the materials, the following points are

curved out for determination -
(i) Whether on 14.4.11 at about 9.30 P.M. at Chengeligaon
under Doomdooma Police Station, the accused Sri Raju Kalita
intentionally caused serious injuries to Sarumai Sonowal
(Borsaikia) which later on resulted her death ?
(ii) Whether on the said date and place the accused voluntarily
caused hurt to Smti Mun Borsaikia and Smti Lily Kalita ?

DECISION, DISCUSSION AND REASONS THEREOF

9. The defence did not deny that Sarumai Sonowal, the mother-in-
law of the accused, being injured fatally on the fateful night of 14.4.11,
for which she died on the way to Tinsukia Civil Hospital from Dangari
Primary Health Centre. But the accused vehemently denied his
involvement. He even denied his presence at the place of occurrence at
the relevant time. According to him, at the relevant time, he was
sleeping in his house and did not know about the death of his mother-in-
law.

10. Now, it is to be seen – how far such defence plea, taken by the
accused is found congruous to the materials available on record.

11. The star campaigner of the prosecution case is PW5 Smti Lily
Kalita, who is none other than the wife of the accused. The other set of
witnesses, who are found to be the fulcrum of the prosecution case are -
PW3 Smti Sewali Sonowal and PW4 Smti Mun Borsaikia.

12. Tendering her evidence PW5 stated that on the Bohag Bihu day
the accused returned home after consuming liquor and asked her –
whether someone had come from the house of her parents. She told him
that her mother and elder brother came and elder brother gave Rs.200/-.
Then the accused wanted to go to the house of the deceased and
accordingly they went to the house of the deceased. The door was
opened by Mun, the sister of PW5. The accused immediately after
entering in to the house, picked verbal dual with Mun for being given
only Rs.200/- by her elder brother. They proceeded to the kitchen. At
that time, the deceased and Sewali were in the kitchen. The accused

3
abused the deceased. At that time, when Mun asked the accused, why
he had raised such hulla and offered him to have Bihu eatable, the
accused raised a stool and attempted to assault her. She managed to
deter the stool with a lathi. Then, when the accused assaulted her with
hand, Mun went out by giving a push to the accused to call their brother
Dharani. At that time the accused assaulted the deceased. Both PW5
and Sewali tried to save the deceased. Then the accused by giving a
push to the PW5, brought out the dao from his back and inflicted blow
on the deceased. At that very moment Sewali ran out of the house. She
(PW5) having seen the dao blow inflicted on her mother by the accused,
rushed to the house of their brother Bulon to inform about the matter.
By cross-examining this very material witness, the defence tried to
suggest that at the relevant time there was no light at the place of
occurrence but PW5 confirmed that though there was no electricity on
the date of occurrence as a result of hailstorm, yet there was light in the
kitchen, as there was a ‘chaki’ and in the light of that chaki, she could
vividly see the accused bringing out the dao. PW5 in cross-examination
confirmed that though at the relevant time her husband was fully
intoxicated, yet he was not unstable. The evidence of PW5 shows that
during investigation she made statement u/s.164 CrPC. She proved her
said statement. Ext.5 is the said statement.
On a very careful scrutiny of the said statement I have found no
contradiction or discrepancy to discredit the veracity of PW5.
During cross-examination of this very material witness the
defence could suggest nothing to disbelieve her testimony. Her evidence
more than clearly shows that the relationship with the accused was quite
normal. The accused in his statement u/s.313 CrPC did state nothing
against his wife (PW5), their relationship etc.

13. PW3 Smti Sewali Sonwal, a girl of aged about 19 years deposed
that the deceased was her related grandmother. Occasionally she used to
stay at the house of the deceased. On the date of occurrence she was at
the house of the deceased and at the relevant time she was busy in
cooking with the deceased. At about 8/8.30 P.M. the accused and his
wife came. Soon thereafter the accused proceeding to the deceased
made hulla over the matter of two hundred rupees given by the elder
brother. At that time he was under intoxication. When he made such
hulla, aunt Mun came to the kitchen and the accused attempted to assault
her by raising a low stool. Managing to deter the same with a “dang” (A
bar used for closing door), Mun went out of the house to inform the
neighbours. The accused started to assault the deceased with hand.
PW3 tried to save her. At that very moment the accused brought out the
dao from his back. The dao was kept under his shirt. On seeing the dao
she (PW3) out of fear ran out of the house. She met Mun on the road.
She informed her about the dao brought out by the accused. Both PW3
and Mun returned and found the deceased on the floor of the kitchen
with bleeding injury on her head. At that time she was alive but not in a
position to speak. After committing the crime the accused fled away
from the scene of occurrence. She also deposed that her aunt Lily, i.e.

4
wife of the accused on that very night went to the house of her brother
Bulan Borsaikia and returned in the morning and told that the accused
cut the deceased. The deceased was taken to Dangari hospital and there
from to Civil Hospital on the night of occurrence itself but she
succumbed to her injuries. The evidence of PW3 also shows that during
investigation the police interrogated her and she was also taken to the
Court for recording statement u/s.164 CrPC. She proved her statement
u/s.164 CrPC. Ext.3 is the said statement.
PW3 was vigorously cross-examined by the defence side but
nothing could elicit to shatter her evidence, reproduced above. The
evidence of PW3 is found supported by PW4 Smti Mun Borsaikia.

14. PW4 is the daughter of the deceased Sarumai Borsaikia.

Tendering her evidence she stated that on the date of occurrence on the
day of Bohag Bihu on 14.4.11 at about 8.30 P.M. her sister and the
accused came to their house. At that time she along with deceased, her
niece Sewali and her dumb sister Putu Borsaikia were in their house.
Soon after entering in to the house, the accused started to abuse them for
being given two hundred rupees by their brother Tapan Borsaikia for
Bihu. As the accused raised hulla at the top of his voice, PW4 asked the
accused why he was making such hulla. Then the accused attempted to
assault her with a stool. However, PW4 managed to return the stool with
a “dang” and went to the house of Dharani to inform him about the
matter. When the accused attempted to assault her, the deceased was
just on the back of PW4. The accused abused the deceased also for the
said two hundred rupees. PW4 further stated, when she came out of the
house of Dharani, Sewali reached there and informed PW4 that the
accused assaulted the deceased badly. Having come to know about such
assault on the deceased PW4 rushed to her house and found her mother
on the floor of the kitchen with injury on head, ear and near the eye. She
was smeared with blood. She also stated that Sewali told her that the
deceased was taken to Dangari hospital and there from to Civil hospital,
Tinsukia but she succumbed to her injuries before reaching Civil
Hospital, Tinsukia. PW4 further stated that Sewali told her that the
accused brought out one dao which was kept concealed inside his shirt
on the back. In the mean time their relatives reached the place of
occurrence. The evidence of PW4 also shows that during investigation
she made statement before the Court. Ext.4 is the said statement.
The above evidence of PW4 also found unshattered during cross-
examination.

15. PW8 is Dr. Nirod Kr. Borah, who had conducted autopsy on the
dead body of Sarumai Sonowal in connection with Talap Out Post G.D.
Entry No.341 dated 15.4.11 at Civil Hospital, Tinsukia on 15.4.11. On
examination, he found the following –
“External Appearance:- A female dead body of average built,
brown in complexion, having long and grey hair, wearing a pink
blouse, a white chadar and white mekhela. Rigormortis present.

5
 Injuries :
1. One incised wound on left side of head and face, horizontal
and 8 cm long, starting from outer canthus of left eye across
the ear up to mastoid process, involving muscles and bones,
caused by sharp weapon.
2. One incised wound of 10cm in length, vertically, starting from
left forehead across the left eye, the cheek up to angle of jaw.
The injury involved skin and muscles of face and underlying
bones. The eye-ball was incised, caused by sharp weapon.
3. Contusion of the occipital region of size 3cm x 4cm, caused by
blunt force impact.
Cranium and Spinal Canal:- Membrane – about 60 ml. of blood
was present in the subdural space. Brain – Both frontal and
occipital lobes were congested. Ventricles contained blood.
Abdomen:- Stomach contained partially digested food mixed with
digestive juices. All other organs were normal and healthy.”
PW8 opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a
result of injuries sustained. All injuries were antemortem and homicidal
in nature. Approximate time since death was 18 to 24 hours. He further
opined that injury No.1 and 2 are individually sufficient to cause death
of a person in normal course. Ext.9 is the post mortem examination
report.

16. On a very careful scrutiny of the evidence on record so tendered

by PW3, PW4 and PW5 I have found that at the relevant time there was
no male member in the house of the deceased and PW5 was present at
the place of occurrence from the very beginning till inflicting the dao
blows which proved to be fatal to the deceased. She forcefully stated
that she vividly saw the accused bringing out the dao from his back. Her
evidence demonstrates that the dao was carried by the accused from his
own house.

17. The evidence of PW4 is that when the accused made an unsafe
situation in the house, she rushed to the house of his brother to inform
him about the same but when she returned, she found her mother in
injured state. On the other hand, PW3 was there at the place of
occurrence till the accused brought out the dao from his back. When the
accused brought out the dao, she out of fear ran away from the place of
occurrence. Their evidence also shows that both PW3 and PW4 returned
immediately after the assault on the deceased. They found the deceased
in injured condition with bleeding injuries. PW3, PW4 and PW5 and the
accused as well are closely related to one another.

18. The occurrence took place inside the kitchen of the deceased, as it
evident from the evidence of PW3, PW4 and PW5.

19. The accused has taken the plea of total denial. Even he denied
visiting the house of the deceased. He stated in the statement u/s.313
CrPC that at the relevant time he was sleeping at his house. When in the

6
morning he was having Bihu food in the house of Konbhai, three boys
came there and forcibly took him on bike and assaulted on road. Till
then he did not know about the death of his mother-in-law, as at the
relevant time, he fell asleep at his own house.

20. The accused in his statement admitted that he had constructed his
house on the land given by the deceased. The sketch map which is
proved by the I.O. demonstrates that the house of the accused is at a
stone’s throw distance from the house of the deceased. The place of
occurrence is situated at village. Small matters are even spread like wild
fire in a village because of fair communication maintained by the
villagers amongst themselves. The incident of injuries sustained by the
deceased by the accused and her shifting to the hospital are such a big
matter that did not reach her son-in-law in the very face of it is just
unbelievable.

21. The evidence tendered by PW3, PW4 and PW5 reveals that after
the incident the accused fled away from the scene. PW5 in her evidence
stated that on the following day of occurrence the accused was
apprehended at Baliani village. Her such evidence draws support from
the evidence of Investigating Officer PW6 Sri Tikheswar Gogoi, I/c,
Talap Out Post. His evidence is that on 15.4.11 he received a telephonic
message from Sri H. Chakradhara to the effect that one Sarumai
Sonowal who was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Tinsukia for being
injured by her son-in-law succumbed to her injuries. The said
information was entered in the General Diary of the Out Post vide
No.341. Some time thereafter one Sri Akon Saikia informed PW6 that
Sri Raju Kalita who had killed Sarumai by inflicting cut injuries with
dao was apprehended and assaulted by the villagers of Chengeli Gaon.
On receiving such information PW6 along with staff proceeded to
Chengeli gaon. Accused Raju Kalita was found in injured condition.
Therefore, he was sent to Dangari CHC and there from he was sent to
Civil Hospital, Tinsukia. He got treatment as inpatient till 22.4.11.

22. The prosecution failed to produce the extract copy of G.D. entry
No.341 dated 15.4.11. As the said G.D. entry is found to be most vital;
to arrive at the just decision of charges hurled at the accused person, the
I/c, Talap Out Post was directed to produce the extract copy of the same.
Accordingly the duly authenticated extract copy of the said G.D. entry
has been received. The same is marked as Document “X”. On a perusal
of the said entry reveals that the same contained what have been deposed
by PW6 as regards to the G.D. entry No.341 dated 15.4.11, reproduced
above.

23. Furthermore, during investigation PW6 sent PW3, PW4 and PW5
to the Court for recording their statements. I have gone through the
statements which are marked as Ext.3, Ext.4 and Ext.5. The said
statements were recorded on 18.4.11. On a meticulous scrutiny of their

7
statement u/s.164 CrPC and their evidence before the Court I have found
no material discrepancy and/or contradiction.

24. The remaining non-official PWs herein are –PW1 Sri Akon Saikia
and PW2 Sri Premadhar Borsaikia. As per evidence of PW1 who is a
nephew of the deceased from her husband side, his house is situated at a
distance of about one kilometer from the house of the deceased. On the
ill-fated night at about 12 o’ clock Smti Mun Borsaikia (PW4) informed
him over telephone that her mother was cut by the accused. Immediately
on receiving such information he rushed to the house of his aunt. But
before his arrival, his aunt was taken to Dangari Hospital for treatment.
From Dangari hospital she was taken to the Civil Hospital, Tinsukia.
But she succumbed to the injuries sustained. His further evidence is that
he came to know from PW4that after committing the crime the accused
had run away from the place of occurrence. The accused was
apprehended by some village boys from the house of Prafulla Sonowal
and handed over to the police. He lodged written ejahar at Talap Out
post. Ext.1 is the ejahar.
PW1 was subjected to cross-examination. But his evidence
remained unshattered. Nothing has been brought by the defence why
testimony of PW1 is to be disbelieved.

25. PW2 is also another relative of the deceased from her husband’s
side. He is also a neighbour of the deceased. His evidence is that on the
fateful day of occurrence at about 10 P.M. Smti Mun Borsaikia came to
his house and informed that the accused with a dao in hand made hulla
in their house. Having come to know about the same his (PW2) son
Bikash went to the place of occurrence and on seeing serious injuries on
the person of the deceased, Bikash shifted her to Dangari Hospital.
Following day, in the morning he went to the house of the deceased and
he came to know from Mun and Sewali i.e. PW3 and PW4 that after
injuring his mother-in-law the accused had run away. Later on, the
accused was apprehended by Sri Babu Sonowal and Gagan Sonowal
from the house of one person of Nalani gaon and handed over to the
police.

26. Such evidence of PW1 and PW2 that the accused was
apprehended by some boys from the house of a person is admitted by the
accused in his statement u/s.313 CrPC.

27. The occurrence took place in the kitchen of the deceased and at
night time. Under such circumstances the prosecution is bound to rely
on the testimony of the inmates of the house, present at that time. It is
the settled position of law that evidence of one witness, if believed, is
sufficient to establish any fact to which the witness speaks directly. One
credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses
of different character. Where the prosecution rests on sole testimony of
an eye witness, the same should be wholly reliable. Here in the instant
case, the prosecution has examined PW5 as eye witness of the entire

8
incident, whereas the prosecution examined PW3 and PW4 to establish
first part of the incident. The accused in his statement u/s.313 CrPC has
taken the plea that he has been falsely implicated in this case but he has
not forwarded any reason, why he has been falsely implicated by his
near relatives, even by his own wife.

28. On a meticulous scrutiny of the entire evidence of PW3, PW4 and

PW5 it is found that the defence could suggest nothing, why these
witnesses are interested to depose against the accused and falsely
implicated him in the case, wherein he has been charged with the murder
of his mother-in-law.

29. The materials available on record is found very much clear that
the relationship between the accused and his wife was quite good and
normal. During the entire period, from the very beginning of
investigation till date they have raised no allegation against each other.
In spite of there being good relation and love for her husband PW5
divulged the fact what she witnessed at the place of occurrence on the
fateful night. Her evidence is found to be consistent with the other
materials/circumstances available on record. Her evidence being reliable
and trustworthy inspires confidence. Leaving aside her matrimonial
relation, she sticks to the cause of justice, though she is found to be a
naive village woman. I have found absolutely nothing to disbelieve him.

30. On the point of submission of benefit of doubt to be given to the

accused person, I would like to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court, reported in Himachal Pradesh Administration – Vs Om
Prakash, AIR 1972 SC 975 as follows –
“The benefit of doubt to which the accused in entitled is
reasonable doubt – the doubt which rational thinking men will
reasonably, honestly and conscientiously entertain and not the doubt of a
timid mind which fights shy – though unwittingly it may be – or is afraid
of the logical consequences, if that benefit was not given or as one great
Judge said it is ‘not the doubt of a vacillating mind that has not the moral
courage to decide but shelters itself in a vein and idle scepticism.’ It
does not mean that the evidence must be so strong as to exclude even a
remote possibility that the accused could not have committed the
offence. If that were so, the law would fail to protect society as in no
case can such a possibility be excluded. It will give room for fanciful
conjectures or untenable doubts and will result in deflecting the course
of justice, if not, thwarting it altogether.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court also observed in another decision,
reported in Inder Singh and another – Vs – State (Delhi Administration)
AIR 1978 SC 1091- “While it is necessary that proof beyond reasonable
doubt should be adduced in all criminal cases, it is not necessary that it
should be perfect. If a case is proved too perfectly, it is argued that it is
artificial; if a case has some flaws, inevitable because human beings are
prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in
the meticulous hyper sensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being

9
punished, many guilty men must be callously allowed to escape. Proof
beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish and guilty man
cannot get away with it because truth suffers some infirmity when
projected through human processes. Judicial quest for perfect proof
often accounts for police presentation of fool-proof concoction. Why
fake up? Because the Court ask for manufacture to make truth look
true? No, we must be realistic.”
31. Here in the instant case, totality of the evidence of PW5 who is
held to be trustworthy and reliable, supported by the evidence of PW3
and PW4 and other circumstances, I have found no room to doubt the
prosecution case that on the night of 14.4.11 the accused inflicted as
many as 3injuries, out of which two injuries are individually sufficient to
cause death of a person in normal course, on the deceased which resulted
her death. The said two injuries as per evidence of the doctor,
reproduced hereinabove were caused by sharp weapon. PW5 all along
maintains that the accused inflicted dao blows to the deceased. A “dao”
is undisputedly a sharp cutting weapon.
32. Now, it is to be seen – whether the offence committed by the
accused falls within the meaning “culpable homicide” amounting to
murder as defined in Section 300 I.P.C. Culpable homicide is murder, if
the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing
death, or
2ndly – If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily
injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person
to whom the harm is caused, or
3rdly – If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to
any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or
4thly – If the person committing the act knows that it is so
imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without
any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as
aforesaid.
Here in the instant case the accused at the initial stage picked
quarrel for rupees two hundred given by the elder brother of PW5 for
Bihu and abused PW4 and the deceased. Thereafter he attempted to
assault PW4 with a stool and when she left the place of occurrence the
accused attacked the deceased with hand and PW3 and PW5 tried to
save the deceased, then the accused brought out the “dao” and hit her on
the head and other parts. Such evidence makes it clear that the accused
before bring out the “dao” was resisted by both PW3 and PW5 from
assaulting the deceased. At that time he used his hand only. PW5 in her
evidence stated that the accused assaulted the deceased by pressing her
to lie on the ground. The intention of the accused is found to be very
clear from the fact of using the “dao” by him when a woman who is
none other than his mother-in-law was on the ground. At that position
he gave more than one blow on the most vital parts of the body of the
deceased. His intention, as it is found from his conduct, was certainly to
cause death of the deceased.

10
33. Now, at this juncture, I have found it relevant to consider the
submission as to intoxication. On a careful scrutiny of the materials, I
have found that there is absolutely no material to show that the thing
which intoxicated the accused was administered to him without his
knowledge or against his will. The above being the position, in my
opinion, the accused is not entitled to get any benefit under the provision
of section 85 or 86 I.P.C. for causing the death of his mother-in-law
under intoxication.

34. For the reasons and discussions made, it is held that the offence
committed by the accused comes within the purview of Section 302
I.P.C.

35. In this case the accused has also been charged with commission of
offence u/s.323 I.P.C. for voluntarily causing hurt to PW4 and PW5.
While discussing the evidence of PW3, PW4 and PW5 it is found that
the accused at the relevant time after entering in to the kitchen i.e. the
place of occurrence, attempted to assault PW4 with a stool but she
managed to save herself by using a “dang”. PW4 in cross-examination
stated that when she tried to push back the stool, the accused gave her
blows and he also caught her neck and as a result she sustained injury on
the nose and pain on her neck. Such evidence of PW4 finds support
from the evidence of PW5. The accused assaulted PW4 with hand and
then she (PW4) went out of the room by giving a push to the accused.
The evidence of PW3, PW4 and PW5 shows that PW5 did not receive
any injury. In this regard, the evidence of PW5 is that when the accused
assaulted her mother, she and PW3 dragged him from assaulting the
deceased and then the accused gave her push and assaulted the deceased
with dao, carried by him on his back.
The prosecution claimed that both PW4 and PW5 were taken to
the Dangari Hospital and they were examined by PW7 Dr. Dilip Kr.
Phukan. The evidence of Dr. Dilip Kr. Phukan is that on 18.4.2011
while he was at Dangari CHC, he examined Smti Lili Kalita and Smti
Moon Borsaikia in connection with Doom-Dooma P.S. Case No.103/11
u/s.302 I.P.C. and found no external injury on the person of Lili Kalita
but found one bruise on the nose of Moon Borsaikia of size 1.5cm x
1cm.
In view of the above evidence, I am of the opinion that the
prosecution has established the charge u/s.323 I.P.C.

36. Close on the heels of entire discussion, the accused Sri Raju Kalita
is held guilty of committing offences u/s.302/323 I.P.C. and he is
convicted accordingly.

HEARING ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE U/s.235(2) CrPC

Heard the accused on the point of sentence likely to be inflicted
upon him. His statement is recorded in separate sheet. He prays to deal

11
with leniently. I have considered the entire facts and circumstances of
the case leading to the death of the deceased on the day of “Bihu”.

This case, evidently not being a case of rarest of the rare one to
impose death penalty. Hence the accused is sentenced to suffer
Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand), in default to Simple Imprisonment for 6 (six) months u/s.302
I.P.C. and a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand), in default to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months u/s.323 I.P.C. The
period already spent in jail during investigation and triable be set off
u/s.428 CrPC. On realization of the fine, if any, the same be given to
PW4 Smti Mun Borsaikia.

Given under my hand & seal of this Court on this the 4th day of
June, 2012.

Dictated & corrected by me.

(A. Devee)
Sessions Judge Sessions Judge
Tinsukia Tinsukia

12
 A P P E N D I X

WITNESSES FOR THE PROSECUTION

PW1 Sri Akon Saikia
PW2 Sri Premadhar Borsaikia
PW3 Smti Sewali Sonowal
PW4 Smti Mun Borsaikia
PW5 Smti Lily Kalita
PW6 Sri Tikheswar Gogoi
PW7 Dr. Dilip Kr. Phukan
PW8 Dr. Nirod Kr. Borah

WITNESS FOR THE DEFENCE

NIL
DOCUMENTS FOR THE PROSECUTION
Ext.1 Ejahar
Ext.1(1) Signature of PW1
Ext.1(2) Signature of Sri Moni Mohan Koch, the then O.C.,
Doomdooma P.S.
Ext.2 Seizure-list
Ext.2(1) Signature of PW1
Ext.2(2) Signature of PW2
Ext.2(3) Signature of PW6
Ext.3 Statement of PW3
Ext.3(1) Signature of PW3
Ext.4 Statement of PW4
Ext.4(1) & Signatures of PW4
Ext.4(2)
Ext.5 Statement of PW5
Ext.5(1) & Signatures of PW5
Ext.5(2)
Ext.7 Medical examination report of PW5
Ext.8 Medical examination report of PW4
Ext.9 Post mortem examination report
Ext.9(1) Signature of PW8
Ext.10 Inquest Report
Ext.11 Charge-sheet
Ext.11(1) Signature of PW6

DOCUMENT FOR THE DEFENCE

NIL

COURT DOCUMENT
Document “X” G.D.Entry No.341 dated 15.4.11 of Talap O.P.

Sessions Judge
Tinsukia

13