RABIN BAURI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant who was accused of committing the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder, stood his trial under Sec. 302 of the India Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 71 of 1979 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 45 of 1980 in the court of Additional Sessions Judges, Asansol. Sri D. K. Chakraborty Additional Sessions Judge who held the trial, found the accused guilty as charged and by the impugned judgment and order dated 22/12/1980 sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ -, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. The appellant's father Rampada Bauri was the co -accused in the said trial who was charged under Sec. 302/114 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted him.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that there is a place in village Palashdiha under Asansol Police Station for the worship of Goddess Manasha by the local Bauri community and it is commonly known as Manasha -Sthan. There is a temple of the deity with brick wall without any roof thereon. Besides the worship of Goddess Manasha, Astaprahar Sankirtan used to be performed during the month of Baisakh at that place. On such occasions, people raised temporary structure made of bamboo. Date -leaves were spread on it to make it a temporary shade. On 15/5/1978 deceased Moriram Bauri along with other villagers were raising such a temporary structure in order to facilitate them to perform Astaprahar Sankirtan. Accused Rampada Bauri (since acquitted) came there and protested about the making of such arrangements. An altercation ensued between deceased Moriram Bauri and Rampada Bauri. As a result of this altercation, further work of the placing of the shade had to be discontinued. In the midst of the altercations, accused Rabin Bauri (appellant before us), son of Rampada Bauri, armed with a Tangi (a chopper used for sacrificing goat at the altar) came to the place all on a sudden and struck the left side of the waist of the deceased Moriram Bauri from behind with that Tangi and thereafter fled with the said weapon towards Roypara. The blow with that Tangi proved fatal and Moriram Bauri met with instantaneous death. Information being lodged, police registered a case and investigated the occurrence, arrested accused persons and after due investigation submitted charge sheet against both Rampada Bauri and his son Rabin Bauri. In order to bring home the Charges, prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses including the Investigating Officers and the doctor who held the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. The defence took various pleas and was shifting the grounds to counter the assault mounted by the prosecution. At the beginning of the trial, the defence vaguely tried to set up the plea of alibi in respect of accused Rabin Bauri. As the trial progressed, it was apparent that this plea would be of no avail. So defence took the specific plea of right of private defence of person as well as property during the cross -examinations of the prosecution witnesses. This plea of right of private defence of person and property was renewed at the time of examination of the accused under Sec. 813 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Defence also tried to discharge its burden by examining 2 doctors and by producing certain documents relating to the land in which the occurrence took place. Thus, by adducing evidence, defence sought to establish that the land in which the occurrence took place belonged to Rampada Bauri, father of the accused appellant and that the accused had been assaulted first by the members of the prosecution and so Rabin Bauri had to strike in self -defence. However, none of the defence pleas impressed the learned Additional Sessions Judge and were discarded by him. The trial ended in the acquittal of Rampada Bauri and in conviction of Rabin Bauri as stated above.

(3.) We have perused and weighed the evidence on record adduced by both sides. We find the prosecution evidence unassailable in so far as it goes to show that the accused gave the fatal blow on the deceased with the Tangi, material Ext. 1. Confusion was sought to be created as to the terminology of the weapon used in the commission of this ghastly murder. Defence could not derive any benefit out of this confusion. Pointing to material Ext. 1, P.W.1., Tunu Bauri, son of the deceased has stated in his cross -examination that this weapon is known to him as Tangi for slaughtering goats. It is quite possible that such a weapon would be available in the house of Rampada Bauri who is admittedly a worshipper of Goddess Manasha. The unimpeachable prosecution evidence before us that accused Rabin came to the spot with the Tangi and clasping the handle with both hands dealt a mighty blow on the left side of the back of the deceased from behind thereby causing a gaping wound measuring 8"x3" deep into the peritoneal cavity as found by P.W.15, Dr. Kamal Kumar Das who held the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. The single blow inflicted by accused Rabin was so mighty that it caused fracture of Lumbar no. 1 vertebrae , left and right kidneys. That single stroke proved fatal. The wound bled profusely. The deceased advanced a few paces and then slumped down dead. Accused Rabin then ran away with the Tangi and threw the same into a bush, subsequently recovered by the Investigating Officer (P.W. 14) under a seizure memo (Ect.3/3). Being attracted by the hue and cry, the wife of the deceased, Smt. Anna Bauri (P.W.9), came to the scene only to find her husband snatched away from her by the cruel fate. She rolled down on the dead and wailed at the calamity that befell her and her family. What a cruel fate. The weapon which was used to sacrifice goats at the altar of the Goddess Manasha was used, by the turn of events, to sacrifice a human being. It is seen that P.W.1 Tunu Bauri, P.W. 5, Chitta Bauri, and P.W. 11 Dulal Bauri who are the eye witnesses are the sons of the deceased and P.W. 9 Anna Bauri is the wife of the deceased. We have given our anxious consideration on the evidence tendered by them as they are relations of the deceased. We are satisfied that the filial love on the part of P.W.1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 11 and conjugal love on the part of P. W. 9 for the deceased have not blurred their visions to falsely implicate the accused in the commission of the heinous crime of the murder of the deceased. Their ocular version of the occurrence finds full corroboration in the evidence of the independent witnesses like P.W.7. Sunkar Bauri and P.W. 12, Burgapada Bauri. P. W. 10, Billya Mongal Pal and P. W. 13, Mantu Bauri although not eye witnesses, have deposed to the facts and circumstances close on the heels of the crime which lends sufficient credence to the evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses related to the deceased. Prosecution has Unfailingly hooked accused Rabin Bauri who has no escape route left.