Ganga Minje, Gonga Minja vs State of Assam

Ajit Singh, C.J

The sole appellant Ganga Minje @ Gonga Minje has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for

life and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.

The victim of the incident was Kamal Madhuwa, aged about 22 years. He was the sonof Mohendra Madhuwa (PW-5)- the elder brother of the

appellant and their houses were adjacent. Both were the residents of Patabari No. 2 of Chirang District within Assam.

According to the prosecution case, the appellant and his wife-Himlo Minje (PW-3)- hada quarrel at about 8 p.m. on 08.01.2012 and their children

raised a commotion seeing the quarrel between their parents. Kamal Madhuwa, hearing the commotion, went to the house of appellant and tried to

stop the quarrel. But, being further infuriated at this move and unwanted intervention of Kamal Madhuwa, the appellant went inside his house and

by taking a naga dao chased Kamal Madhuwa. Kamal Madhuwa ran for life but the appellant repeatedly hacked him with the naga dao from behind

as a result of which he died instantaneously on the road near the house of the appellant.Â

Mohendra Madhuwa (PW-5), in the meantime, telephonically informed about theincident to Sub-Inspector Binanda Basumatary (PW-11), of

Bengtol Police Out Post who made Exhibit-11 General Diary Entry and rushed to the place of occurrence. By that time the appellant fled and as there

was no vehicle to send the dead body of Kamal Madhuwa for post mortem examination, Binanda Basumatary left the place of occurrence and

returned on the next day morning. In the meantime, the villagers apprehended the appellant and handed him over to the police where after he was

arrested. The naga dao was seized from him vide Exhibit-4 seizure list in presence of Haren Chantramari (PW-4). Mahendra Madhuwa lodged the

First Information Report (Ext-6) at the Bengtol Police Out Post on the next day which was registered as Basugaon Police Station Case No. 02/2012

for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Binanda Basumatary also seized a pair of jeans pant, gamocha and torn clothes worn by

Kamal Madhuwa vide Exhibit-5 seizure list in presence of his fatherMohendra Madhuwa and Binoy Madhuwa (PW-7). Inquest report of the dead

body of Kamal Madhuwa was prepared in presence of Mahendra Madhuwa and Haren Chantramari vide Exhibit-3. Binanda Basumatary further

recorded the statements of witnesses and also got the statements of Gita Minje (PW-1)-daughter of the appellant (Exhibit-1 ), Sumita Minje (Exhibit2)

- grand-daughter of the appellant- and James Ekka (PW-10) (Exhibit-11) recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both Gita

Minje and James Ekka claimed to have seen the appellant committing the crime.Â

The blood stained naga dao was sent to the forensic laboratory for serological test.Anup Matra (PW-13)-the then Senior Scientific Assistant in

Serology Division of the Office of the Directorate of Forensic Science, Assam-after examining the blood stains on the naga dao opined that the blood

stain was of human blood of ‘A’ group. His report is Exhibit-8.

Dr. Jitendra Kumar Nath (PW-9) conducted the post mortem examination on the deadbody of Kamal Madhuwa. He found multiple chopping cut

over the left axillary up to the back of scapular and ribs below scapular, posterior part of right side of the back with size 3†x 1†x 1†and right

cubical form sharp bisecting all vascular compartment of size 2†x 1†x 1†with fracture cut and bone chopping the nape of the neck. The doctor in

his post mortem examination report Exhibit 7 opined that Kamal Madhuwa died due to hemorrhage, neurogenic and spinal injury caused by sharp

cutting heavy weapon. Binanda Basumatary after completing investigation filed Exhibit-10 charge sheet against the appellant.Â

During trial, appellant abjured his guilt. He denied of having any quarrel with his wifeand stated that Kamal Madhuwa came to his house and

assaulted him. He expressed complete ignorance as to how Kamal Madhuwa died. But, the trial court relying upon the evidence adduced by the

prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, we find thatthe occurrence was indeed seen by Gita Minje and James

Ekka. Gita Minje has deposed that on the fateful night, the appellant and her mother-Himlo Minje-had a quarrel and Kamal Madhuwa came to stop the

quarrel. Then the appellant went inside the house and bringing a dao chased him. Kamal Madhuwa ran for life but his leg got trapped on the bridge

and he fell down. Then the appellant hacked him repeatedly with the dao from behind on various parts of his body as a result of which he died. During

her cross-examination also her testimony remained unshaken.

James Ekka has also deposed that he saw the appellant inflicting several blows onKamal Madhuwa with his dao. He has testified that he was

having meal in the house of the in-laws of his sister, whose house was near to that of the appellant. While taking meal, he heard commotion in the

house of appellant and when he came out, he saw Kamal Madhuwa and Gita Minje running out of the house of the appellant and the appellant chasing

them with a dao. Then Kamal Madhuwa fell on the bridge as his foot got trapped between the bamboos of the bridge and then the appellant inflicted

several blows on Kamal Madhuwa with his dao. According to James Ekka he had asked the appellant as to why he inflicting the blows, but the

appellant looked at him angrily and so he fled out of fear. Later on, when the appellant and Gita Minje went home, James Ekka came near Kamal

Madhuwa and found that his neck was cut.

Both these eye witnesses have deposed exactly in similar manner and their testimoniescorroborate each other on material particulars. They even

stated similarly before both the police, during investigation, and before the Magistrate, during their statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure without any material difference. Therefore, their testimonies are reliable and trustworthy and as such can be the basis for

conviction. The fact of having a quarrel between the appellant and Himlo Minje is admitted by Himlo Minje herself as well as by Sumita Minje. Sumita

Minje deposed that she also saw the appellant chasing Kamal Madhuwa with a dao and seeing it, she had fled and after sometime, Gita Minje told

Sumita Minje that the appellant had killed Kamal Madhuwa. Sumita Minje also in her statement Exhibit-2 recorded under Section 164 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure said so. Beside, Sumita Minje, being the grand-daughter of the appellant, and Himlo Minje being his wife, cannot be believed to

have deposed to falsely implicate the appellant. Hence, the testimonies of both Himlo Minje and Sumita Minje further corroborate the evidence of Gita

Mije and James Ekka.

Haren Chantramari, who arrived at the place of occurrence immediately after theoccurrence on being called by Mahendra Madhuwa, has also

deposed that when he reached the place of occurrence, he saw the dead body of Kamal Madhuwa lying on the road. Haren Chantramari also found

both Gita Minje and Sumita Minje at the place of occurrence and they told him that the appellant had committed murder of Kamal Madhuwa. Sita

Minje (PW-8)another daughter of the appellant-has also testified that hearing quarrel of the appellant and Himlo Minje, Kamal Madhuwa came to the

house of the appellant and assaulted the appellant. Kamal Madhuwa also pushed Himlo Minje to the ground. The appellant then chased Kamal

Madhuwa by taking a dao. Sita Minje asked Gita Minje to run taking Kamal Madhuwa with her. But, immediately thereafter, Sita Minje heard

commotion outside and coming out she saw the dead body of Kamal Madhuwa with injuries on his neck and other parts of the body. Gita Minje then

told Sita Minje that their father-the appellant- had committed the murder. Thus, Sita Minje also saw the appellant chasing Kamal Madhuwa with a dao

and immediately thereafter, Kamal Madhuwa was found to be murdered. Even Gita Minje told Sita Minje that the appellant had committed murder of

Kamal Madhuwa. Both Gita Minje and Sita Minje are the daughters of the appellant and as such it is not believable that they would depose falsely

against their father. However, the evidence of Sita Minje to the extent that Kamal Madhuwa assaulted the appellant and had pushed Himlo Minje to

the ground is unbelievable because Himlo Minje has nowhere deposed that she had suffered such a push or that appellant was assaulted by Kamal

Madhuwa. James Ekka was a chance witness who arrived at the place of occurrence and he saw the appellant chasing Gita and Kamal Madhuwa

and then the appellant inflicting injuries on Kamal Madhuwa with a dao. The testimony of James Ekka that both Gita Minje and Kamal Madhuwa

were fleeing together out of fear of the appellant is corroborated by the evidence of Sita Minje. Thus the fact of having a quarrel between the

appellant and his wife-Himlo Minje, intervention of Kamal Madhuwa in their quarrel, the appellant chasing Kamal Madhuwa with a naga dao and

repeatedly hacking him with the naga dao causing his death is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Â

The testimonies of the eye witnesses are further supported by cogent medicalevidence which proves that the injuries were inflicted at the back of

Kamal Madhuwa, which would further go to show that the blows were made from behind when Kamal Madhuwa fell on the ground while he ran for

his life. This would also go to show that Kamal Madhuwa was not an aggressor and he was in fact trying to save himself and the appellant not only

chased him, but repeatedly and brutally hacked him on his vital parts with the naga dao causing his instantaneous death. The serological test also

shows that the blood stain on the dao was of human.

Therefore, we have no hesitation but to hold that the appellant was the soleperpetrator of the crime and the trial court has rightly convicted and

sentenced the appellant.

As such, we find no merit in the appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.Â