JOGENDRA NATH BANTHAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Jogendra Nath Bantha has been convicted by the Deputy Commissioner, Garo Hills, under Section 304, Part B, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six years rigorous imprisonment. On the 15th April, 1960, is the afternoon, the appellant is alleged to have shot his mother Chattai Ravani with a gun. The deceased was taken to the Lakhipur Hospital, where she died Next day, the appellant sent an intimation to the Phulbari Police station that there was an accident in his house through a messenger. The Police investigated the case and submitted a charge sheet The appellant was charged under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution examined a number of witnesses. Mst. Sonai Habhani (P.W. 1), a sister of the appellant, states that she was living in the same compound with the accused. In the afternoon, when she was working in the house, she heard a gun fire. Coming out, she saw her mother lying near the kitchen and she found injury on her left thigh. Thereafter, Mst. Ranji Rabhani (P.W. 2) and Mst. Osai came to the scene of occurrence. Satyen, brother of the appellant, went to the place of occurrence and bandaged his mother. Thereafter, a truck belonging to one Birbal was brought and her mother was taken to Lakhimpur hospital. Mst. Osai and Mst. Ranji went in the truck along with others. Pointing out Ext. 1, she stated that the accused shot at her mother with that gun and she filed a first information report at the Lakhimpur Police station after her mother had died in the hospital She further stated that she saw the accused loitering near about and the gun was lying on the ground which she had denied earlier. She has stated that Mst. Ranji, Mst. Osai and many persons saw the accused going with a gun in hand. The doctor, who attended her mother, asked her as to who caused the injury. The mother had replied that her own son caused the injury. She could not speak any more. (His Lordship then reviewed the evidence and proceeded:)

(2.) -8. The accused, when examined by the Deputy Commissioner, stated that on the day of the occurrence in the afternoon, on coming outside, he saw a rabid dog coming towards the compound. He thought it to be a mad dog and so for the purpose of firing at the dog, he went inside and got the gun ready with bullet inside. He chased the dog and then at the time of chasing the dog, the gun fired automatically all of a sudden. On hearing the cries of man, he found that the gun bullet struck his mother. After giving first aid, she was taken to Lakhipur for treatment. The defence mainly was that it was an accident and the appellant had no intention to kill his mother. He saw the mad dog coming and when brought out the gun and chased the dog, the gun went off accidentally hitting his mother. It has been argued by the counsel for the appellant that the Court below has rejected the defence story mainly on the ground that there is no mention of the mad dog in the report submitted to the Police by the accused. In that report, it was only mentioned that some accident had happened in the house of the accused -'If it were a fact that the gun went off accidentally when the accused was chasing a mad dog, this fact should have been mentioned in that report.

(3.) IT is then urged that the doctor in his statement has said that he immediately wrote out the statement made by the deceased on a paper, but that paper has not been produced. As I have already indicated, there is no reason to doubt the statement of the doctor that before him, the deceased stated that it was her son who injured her. If the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the injury was caused by the appellant that he used his gun and the gun shot injured the deceased, the only inference which can be drawn is that the appellant intended to injure his mother, unless it is established by the evidence on the record that the gun went off accidentally and that the appellant was chasing a mad dog when the accident happened. There is no evidence on record to prove this fact, nor can it be inferred from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that it was a case of accident. The evidence of P.W. 11 shows that the trigger was not slack. There was, therefore, no chance of the gun going off accidentally. From the evidence, the charge has been fully established against the appellant.