PHUL CHAND MURA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 6.4.85 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Sessions Case No.5 (D) of 1985, convicting the accused-appellant Phulchand Mura alias Bhuyan under section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. The appeal was entertained on a letter sent by the accused from Jail. On receipt of the letter it was treated as memo of appeal and an advocate of this court was appointed as State defence on his behalf.

(2.) The prosecution case is that at all relevant time the accused Phulchand Mura alias Bhuyan lived in the house of Shri Manmasi Murma along with his family. On 23.9.84 at about 5 p.m. the accused was bickering with his wife when P.W. 3, Buoy Murma, son of Sri Manmasi Murma asked Phulchand not to quarrel but the couple did not pay any heed. The couple had some exchange of words, whereupon P.W. 3, Bijoy requested P. W. 4, Tamar to pacify the accused, but the quarrel continued. In the meantime Bir Bahadur came to the place and tried to pacify the accused. He asked the accused not to quarrel with his wife but the accused picked up altercation with the deceased Bir Bahadur. At this stage when Bir Bahadur was leaving the place the accused in a flash picked up a dao and dealt several dao blows on Bir Bahadur and be-headed him. The neck of the deceased was completely severed from the trunk. With the chopped off head the accused left the place and went through the tea garden. In the meantime P.W. 5 Hem Bahadur, brother of the deceased came, learnt about the incident and went to the Namrup Police Station and lodged an ejahar alleging that at about 6. p.m. Phulchand Mura chopped off Bir Bahadur's head by a dao in the house of Manmasi Murma and ran away with the severed head, vide Ext. 4, the Ejahar. On receipt of the ejahar P.W. 6, S.I. Indra Mohan Saikia, Officer-in-charge of Namrup Police Station hastened to the place of occurrence for investigation. In the meantime the accused appeared at the police station with the severed head of the deceased and the dao. The dao was seized by Kera mat Ali, A.S.I. of Police, Namrup Police Station from accused Phulchand Phulchand Mura, arrested him and held an inquest over the severed head of the deceased. Ext. 3 is the seizure list and Ext. 1 is the inquest memo. On completion of the investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused under section 302, I.P.C. and in due course the accused was committed to the court of Sessions to meet the charge. The prosecution examined six witnesses. Dr. M.N. Gogoi who held the post mortem examinations on the dead body of Bir Rahadur described the injuries as follows: Injury No. 1-One incised wound in the upper part of the neck cutting the neck completely, and separating the head from the body of 3rd cervical vertebrae and the same head fits completely with the neck of the body. Injury No.2-One incised wound on the left face-12 cm. x 3 cm. cutting the skin, muscles, bones on that region.Injury No.3-One incised wound 15 cm. x 6 cm. in the left shoulder region, cutting the head of the left humerus bone completely. Injury No.4-One incised wound 8 cm. x 4 cm. muscle deep in the back of the body in the upper part in the midline of the body. Injury No. 5- Three incised wounds of 3 cm. x 1 cm. muscle deep in the inner side of right forearms in its lower part.He also stated that the 3rd Cervical Vertebrae was completely cut so was the spinal cord at that level. He stated that the bead was completely severed from the trunk. He opined that the injuries were inflicted by heavy sharp cutting weapon and they were ante-mortem and homicidal injuries. According to him injury No. 1 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. He also opined that injuries could be caused by dao like. Material Ext. 1. On his testimony we hold that the prosecution has satisfactorily proved that Bir Bahadur was done to death and injury No.1 was sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause his death. We are of the view that when head of a person is chopped off completely, notwithstanding the absence of any expert opinion we may hold that it was a case of homicide and the person died as a result of the mutilation or wound.

(3.) In the instant case the crucial question is as to whether the findings of the learned Sessions Judge that the accused was the perpetrator at the crime are justified or not. There are ocular as well as circumstantial evidence against the accused. P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 are eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.5, Hem Bahadur came to the place of occurrence after the incident but he v. as immediately reported that the accused Fulchand Phulchand Mura had perpetrated the murder of the deceased. P.W. 2, Arun Lama has stated that since 5 p. m. accused was quarrelling with his wife, the deceased wanted to pacify the accused but he dealt several dao blows on Bir Babadur in consequence of which Bir Bahadur fell down. Even thereafter the accused cut Bir Bahadur 3 or 4 times. They were stunned. He also stated that at all relevant time P.W. 3, Bijoy Murma was present at the scene. He stated that P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 went to the police station and lodged an ejahar. P.W. 3, Bijoy Murma is the son of Manmasi, the owner of the house where the accused and his wife were residing. He stated that there was a quarrel between the accused and his wife. He tried to pacify the accused without success. P.W. 4, Tamar also made an abortive effort to desist the accused from quarrelling with his wife. In the meantime Bir Bahadur came and tried to compose the accused and told the accused not to quarrel with his wife, but the accused picked up a quarrel with Bir Bahadur and dealt dao blows on him. Bir Bahadur fell down, yet 3 to 4 further blows were inflicted. The accused severed his head and went towards the garden with the chopped off head. After the occurrence they went to the police station and informed the police. Thereafter, the accused went to the police station with the head of the deceased and the Daroga seized the head and the dao. P.W. 3, Bijoy Murma had married the younger sister of the accused. He is a cultivator and had no reason to falsely implicate the accused. He was a natural witness being the son of the owner of the house where the accused-lived with his wife. P.W. 4, Tamar corroborated P.W. 3, Bijoy on all material particulars. He is a workman. So was the accused. He also stated that Bir Bahadur tried to pacify the accused and requested him not to quarrel but the accused abused and assaulted him with a dao in consequence of which Bir Bahadur fell down. Thereafter, the accused severed the head of the deceased completely and went away with the severed head and later surrendered at the police station, produced the head of the deceased and the dao. P.W. 4, Tamar is also the resident of the same village. We do not find any reason why he should falsely implicate the accused. P.W. 5. Hem Bahadur is the brother of the deceased. He deposed that on receiving the information about the death of his brother he went to the police station and lodged the F.I.R. The witness never tried to mince words. He clearly stated that be was not an eye-witness to the occurrence. He stated in cross-examination that he saw the accused when he appeared in thane with the severed head and the dao. He categorically stated that he did not witness any part of the occurrence. It is seen that there was no effort on the part of P.W. 5, Hem Bahadur to assume the position of an eye-witness and thereby falsely implicate the accused. P.W. 6, Indra Mohan is the Investigating Officer who narrated how the investigation was conducted and seizure made. He also stated that the accused appeared at the Police Station, while he was away, with the head of the deceased and the dao, and produced them before A.S.I, Keramat Ali.