Mewalal Rabidas And Anr vs State Of Assam

This is an appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., preferred against the judgment and order, dated 03.01.2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge,

Dibrugarh in Sessions Case No.137/2008, whereby each of the appellants have been convicted under Section 326/34 IPC and sentenced to suffer

rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-only, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months and further

convicted under Section 448/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- only each, in default

rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months, with a direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

The appellants’ case, precisely, is that one Sri Sanjib Boruah-the Welfare Officer of the Bhuman Tea Estate lodged an FIR on 08.05.2008 with

the in-charge of Bamunbari Police Out Post under Moran Police Station, Dibrugarh, alleging, inter-alia, that on that day, at 08.30 am, the appellant,

namely, Kartik Robidas, who is a permanent worker of the garden and his brother, namely, Mewalal Robidas, who is a non-worker, but resident of

Bam Line of the Tea Estate entered into the Manager’s office chamber and assaulted the Manager i.e. Sri Amlan Kishore Dutta by means of a

‘dao’ and attempted to kill him. It was further alleged that in the said incident Sri Amlan Kishore Dutta received injuries on his left-forearm and

on back of the head caused by a ‘dao’. Based on the said FIR, Bamunbari OP G.D. Entry No.102, dated 08.05.2008, at 08.45 am, was entered

and on being forwarded registered as Moran P.S. Case No. 53/08, dated 08.05.2008, under Sections 448/326/307/34 IPC. The Officer-in-Charge

endorsed the case to A.S.I. Atul Chutia, who had already taken up the investigation into the case.

In course of investigation, the I.O. visited the place of occurrence, examined witnesses and on completion of the investigation S. I. Anjan Thakur

had laid a Charge-Sheet under Sections 448/326/307/34 IPC against the appellants. The offence under Section 307 IPC being exclusively triable by

the Court of Sessions, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh,

after observing necessary formalities under Section 209 Cr.P.C, where the case was registered as Session Case No. 137/2008 and the case was

eventually made over to the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge for disposal and accordingly, after hearing the learned counsel of both the sides

and scrutiny of the materials placed, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 448/326/307/34 IPC against the appellants. The

charges were read over and explained to the appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In order to prove the charges, the prosecution side examined as many as, 11 witnesses, including the Doctor (PW.7) and the I.O. (PW.11). The

defence cross-examined them at length. On closing the evidence of the prosecution side, the learned Sessions Judge examined the appellants as

required under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellants pleaded not guilty and inclined to examine witnesses in defence. However, they did not examine

any witness in defence. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh held the appellants guilty under Sections 448/326/34 IPC and sentenced

them as stated above.

Heard Mr. P. J. Saikia, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. PP, Assam, appearing for the State.

Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that there is absolutely no incriminating evidence satisfying the ingredients of the offences

under Sections 448/326 IPC to warrant the conviction of the accused appellants. Mr. Saikia further submits that the learned court below failed to

notice the material contradictions in the evidence of P.W.-2, the injured in asmuch as P.W.-2 stated that the appellant entered into his office chamber,

being armed with one chopper by the appellant No. 1 and a wooden stick by the appellant No. 2 and then when the appellant No. 1 made an attempt

to strike at his neck, P.W.-2 resisted raised his hand and in the process, he (P.W-2) sustained cut injuries in his left hand. According to Mr. Saikia,

learned counsel, when the appellant No. 1 again hit on the back of his head, the appellant No. 2 gave blows on his head with the wooden stick.

However, in cross-examination, P.W.-2 contradicted deposing that he was not assaulted by Mat. Ext. 1, the chopper and Mat. Ext. 2, the wooden

stick. Mr. Saikia also submits that the learned court below failed to take note of the material contradictions in the evidence of the P.W. Nos. 5, 6 and

11 ( the I.O.), so far the presence of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 at the place of occurrence as well as the evidence of P.W.-2 with that of his

statement, recorded under Sections 161 Cr. P.C. Reflecting on the evidence of P.W.-7, the doctor, Mr. Saikia submits that the injury report is doubtful

as it was not possible to examine P.W.-2, the injured, on police requisition within about 5 minutes of the occurrence, when Bamunbari Police Out Post

is situated about half a K.M. away from the place of occurrence. Thus, Mr. Saikia submits that the learned court below failed to appreciate the

evidence from proper perspective.

Per contra, Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there is abundance of incriminating evidence against the appellants as

they were caught red-handed with the seized weapons of offence by the garden staff within the office chamber of P.W.-2 and the injuries sustained

by P.W.-2 have been supported by the medical evidence of P.W.-7, the doctor, who withstood the test of cross-examination by the defence. Mr. Das

further submits that the appellants in their statements, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, have admitted their presence at the place of occurrence

ostensibly to discuss with P.W.-2 in regard to some land dispute with the garden authority. Therefore, Mr. Das contends that there is consistent and

convincing incriminating evidence against the appellants and as such, the learned trial court rightly convicted them.

It is pertinent to be mentioned that ‘hurt’ has been defined in Section 319, whereas Sections 320 IPC defines ‘grievous hurt’.

Voluntarily causing grievous hurt is defined in Section 322 IPC and when such grievous hurt is caused by dangerous weapons or means, it is

punishable under Section 326 IPC. Section 448 IPC prescribes punishment for house-trespass.

In the instant case, perusal of the evidence of P.W.-7 Smti.(Dr.) Lupa Das, the doctor of Bhamun T.E., who examined P.W.-2 Amlan Kishor

Dutta, the injured, on 08.05.2008, on police requisition, found that following injuries on his (P.W-2) person;

“1. Left forearm near the wrist 1†depth bleeding profusely where all the great vessels, muscles and ulna born were severed. The medial & ulner

artery and nerves in the flexor compartment, all the flexor tendons, were cut.

Two wounds were on the back side of the head â€" one wound was 2.4 cm and the second wound was 1X 1.5 cm. Both wounds 0.5†depth

wherefrom there was profuse bleeding. There was no muscle in the region.

Duration of the injury â€" immediately 5 minutes after the incident.

Nature of injury â€

Injury No. 1 â€" very grievous

Injury No. 2 â€" simple injury.

The doctor (P.W.-7) held the opinion that the injury No. 1 was grievous in nature and injury No. 2 was simple in nature and both the injuries were

caused by sharp weapon. According to the doctor (P.W.-7), such injuries may be caused by weapon like Mat. Ext. 1. The doctor, however, could not

say about the age of the injuries.

From the evidence of P.W. 1, Sanjib Boruah, the Welfare Officer of the T.E., it is noticed that at the relevant time of occurrence, he was present

at the office, located adjacent to the office of PW 2, the injured and hearing the call of PW 2, he rushed to his office chamber and found him with

multiple cut injuries on his left hand and on enquiry, he came to know that the appellants who were apprehended inside his office room assaulted him.

The evidence of P.W.-1 is corroborated by P.W.-3, Lila Kanta Phukan, a garden employee, who at the relevant time was working in the adjacent

room of the office of P.W.-2, the injured, rushed to the room of the Manager (P.W.-2) hearing his hue and cry and found him (P.W.-2) sustaining curt

injuries in hand, while the appellants were present. According to P.W.-3, while appellant Mewala made an attempt to hit him (P.W.-2) with a dao, the

Manager (P.W-2) held the dao and appellant Kartik armed with a stick prepared to hit him. He (P.W.-3) and other staff on duty in the office over

powered both the appellants, disarmed them and took out of the office, and let them both freed and further, the Manager (P.W- 2) was taken to the

garden hospital for treatment, wherefrom, he was shifted to Dibrugarh for treatment.

Police seized some office articles stained with blood by Ext. 2, the seizure memo vide Mat. Exts. 3 to 6 and Mat. Ext. 1, one dao and Mat. Exts. Dao

and stick were seized by Ext. 3, the seizure memo, which he (P.W.- 3) recognized. The evidence of P.W.-4 Dipak Gogoi, P.W.-5 Sawargam Sabasi,

P.W.-6 Benu Garh, P.W.-8 Samra Keot and P.W.9- Hemanta Mili, the garden staff on duty at the relevant time, have seen the appellants being held

by the other office staff and they also caught hold of the appellants, on request of other office staff. P.W.-4 has deposed to have seen the appellant

Mewala holding a dao in hand. It has come in evidence that there was a land dispute between the garden authority and the parents of the appellants

and in connection with the dispute their mother lost her job of the garden. The appellants in their statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C., although

denied all the incriminating evidence that emerged against them, it is, however, admitted that they were caught in the office of the garden Manager

(P.W.-2) reinforcing the consistent prosecution evidence that both of them only and no other person committed assault on P.W.-2, the injured with

deadly weapons dao and stick.

Be it mentioned here, that although, some inconsistencies have been found in regard to the time of examination of the injured and also the Police

requisition, as it is revealed from the evidence of PW. 7, but it is noticed that the defence has not challenged the medical report of PW. 7 on injuries

found on the person of PW2. Therefore, the inconsistencies that have emerged on the evidence of PW 2 are treated as insignificant.

Considering thus, placing reliance on the consistent, cogent and convincing evidence of PWs which are reinforced in material particulars by the

appellants in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., this Court finds no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and order rendered by the

learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh.

Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed.

The appellants are directed to surrender before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh to serve out the sentence. Let the LCRs

along with a copy of this judgment and order be forwarded to the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh.