ARABIAN MURMU Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Sri Arabian Murmo @ Raising Murmo has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for 1(one) month for the murder of one Jeta Murmu, aged about 65 years, whose corps was found in a decomposed state in the house of the appellant.

(2.) On 03.04.2009, an ejahar (Ext. -1) was lodged before the Officer In-charge, Udalguri Police Station by Lazarus Hasda (PW-1), Secretary of the Village Defence Party and Karnel Hasda, both resident of No. 2 Sape-khaiti (Bagantola) Village. The said ejahar dated 03.04.2009 was received and registered as Udalguri Police Station Case No. 54/2009 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The contents of the ejahar was that the appellant, who is the resident of No. 2 Sapekhaiti (Bagantola) Village had killed an unidentified person and left the dead body in his own house. As a foul smell was emanating from the house of the appellant, the neighbors of the appellant had informed the Village Defence Party as well as the Gaon-burha of the village. The Gaoburha accompanied by the Village Defence Party had gone to the appellant's house and saw a dead body of an unidentified person lying on the floor inside the appellant's house. Durendra Nath Hazowary (PW-7), who was entrusted with the investigation of the case in his capacity as the Sub-Inspector of Police, In-charge of Bhairabkunda Outpost under Udalguri Police Station immediately proceeded to the place of occurrence upon the lodging of the ejahar dated 03.04.2009. He witnessed dead body of a male person inside the house of the accused and held inquest on the dead body on the following day. He examined the witnesses and also arrested the appellant. The weapon of offence being an axe was produced from inside his house and while doing so had also confessed that he had used it in the occurrence. The post mortem examination of the deceased i.e. Jeta Murmu was carried out on 04.04.2009 by Dr. Samsul Hoque (PW-3). The Post Mortem Report (Ext. 4) described the external appearance as that a dead male body in a state of decomposition with Rigormortis and Magoot present all over the body. Injury found was that of a contusion of size 4 x 2 cm. on the left side of the chest in the deep muscles over the 3rd and 4th ribs. Medical opinion rendered was that death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of injury sustained with the injuries being ante mortem in nature.

(3.) During trial, as many as 8(eight) witnesses were examined by the prosecution side. Lazarus Hasda (PW-1) being the Secretary of the Village Defence Party and the informant in the case, deposed that on getting news from his wife, who in turn, was asked by one Bichitra Narayan Basumatary who tell her husband that a dead body is lying in the house of the appellant and went to the appellant's house and saw the dead body lying on the floor of the appellant's house. According to the PW-1, when he had put questions, the appellant replied to him in presence of people who had gathered here, that he had killed the person inside his house by hacking him with an axe on the head. According to him, the appellant confessed his guilt and in the presence of the PW-1, the accused had produced an axe from his house, which the Police seized through Ext-3. On course, the PW-1 deposed that he did not mention in the ejahar that the appellant had confessed his guilt. He also stated that the appellant sells liquor in the village and he can do only light works with his right hand but not in heavy works. Suren Daimary (PW-2) is the Village Headman, who upon getting information from the Secretary of the Village Defence Party, had visited the appellant's house and saw a male person died on the floor of the appellant's house. He also deposed that the wife of the appellant had told him that the person lying on the floor was killed by the appellant. Dr. Samsul Hoque (PW-3) is the Medical Officer, who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of Jeta Murm. In his deposition he described the external appearance of the dead body as well as the injuries present. Opinion was rendered to the extent that death had been caused due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of the injuries sustained with all injuries being ante mortem in nature. Bimal Murmu (PW-4), who is the brother of the deceased Jeta Murmu also deposed that he had visited the police station and saw Jeta's dead body lying on the floor of the appellant's house. He also deposed that in his presence the police had seized an axe and he is a seizure witness to Ext-3. On course, he also deposed that the appellant while saying that he had killed Jeta Murmu with an axe, handed over the axe to the police. Sri Raju Kisko (PW-5) being the son-in-law of the deceased as well as Maloli Murmu (PW-6) being the daughter of the deceased also deposed that they had gone over to the appellant's house and found Jeta Mmrmu lying dead. PW-6 also stated that he identified her father's dead body. Durendra Nath Hazowary (PW-7) is the police personnel with the investigation of the case. He has testified to the extent of having seen the dead body of a male person inside the hosue of the appellant and that appellant had also produced an axe from inside his house confessing that he had used the same in the incident. That witness have been examined, inquest was made, weapon of offence was seized, arrest of the appellant and sending the dead body for post mortem examination and in collecting the report thereof are part of the deposition of PW-7. Salita Hembram (PW-8) is the wife of the appellant. In her testimony she stated that she could sense foul smell from near the piles of firewood and on removing the same, she could see a decomposed dead body. In the statement of the appellant under Section 313 CrPC and against the Question No.1 regarding dead body being found inside his house, the appellant admitted to the same but denied of having killed the person. In the said statement, he also stated that his right hand is useless and therefore he could not have killed the person. Also he has two houses and that he does not live in the house from where the dead body was recovered. Only stores firewood in that house. He also stated that getting some smell, he had also gone to the house to see and found a dead body there. Apart from the aforesaid statement, the defence did not produce any witnesses.