RANGTA MAJHI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The earlier theory and philosophy for criminal offence as to the punishment eye for an eye and death for a deathT is no longer in vogue in the present system of administration of criminal justice. In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab a synthesis has amerged wherein the rarest of rare cases formula for imposing death sentence in a murder case has been evolved by the Apex Court. A guideline is spelled out in Bachan Singhs case (supra) to determine whether or not death sentence should be imposed which is also the problem before us in this present case we are to deal with.

(2.) The appeal is projected from jail by a life convict who has been found guilty under section 302, IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Sessions Case No. 62(D /85 and sentenced to suffer RI for life. On a cursory glance of the facts of the present case a Rule of enhancement was issued by this Court to show cause as to why the appellant should not be awarded a death sentence for knowing 5 human beings in the same transaction of his commission of offence which occurred on 27.10.84 at about 7 p.m. at No. Bahoni Gaon, Sarojini Tea Estate in the district of Dibrugarh. The occurrence which took place on the aforesaid date and hour was really gruesome. 5 members of the household of PW 1 Smt. Sumila Nagbangshi, the widow of the unfortunate victim Fagu Nagbaugshi became the target of the assailant who had lost their lives in course of the murderers attack. All the 5 victims were (1) Pagu Nagbangshi, the husband of PW 1, (2) Golapi Nagbangshi, mother-in-law of PW 1, (3) Bandini Nagbangshi, (4) Sukura Nagbangshi, sister-in-law of PW 1 and (5) Rupsai Nagbangshi, the father- in-law of PW 1. Out of the aforesaid victims two were minors. They were Balldini Nagbangshi and Sukura Nagbangshi aged about 6 and 12 years respectively. PW 1, however, escaped the assault of the assailant, perhaps to tell the tale of the ghastly incident. According to the prosecution case the accused-appellant Rongta Majhi in the unfortunate evening of 27.10.84 first hacked Rupsai to death. Then Rupsais wife Golapi Nagbangshi and two daughters Smt. Bandini Nagbangshi (about 6 years) and Smt. Sukura Nagbangshi (about 12 years) were done to death one after another. The accused thereafter ran smock and while he was returning to his house he saw Pagu, husband of PW 1 coming along the road with his wife who returned from the bazar. No sooner he saw Faga coming along with his wife, than the accused dealt dao blows on faguard hacked him to death. Immediately, after the incident, the accused went to Manager of Sarojini Tea Estate and met him his bunglow and confessed his guilt before him. An advised by the Manager of the garden, Shri Bhuban Chandra Adhyapak (PW 3), the accused surrendered at Barbam Police Out Post with the dao by which he had committed the assault. The accused also made a confessional statement before a Judicial Magistrate (PW 9) on 30.10.84. The further case of the prosecution is that PW 5 Kandra Lahar after sending the dead body of Fagu went to inform the Manager of the garden where he met the accused and thereafter went to Police Out Post. PW 6 Ugrasen Tanti, garden worker and the Chowkidar of Sarojini Tea Estate also informed the police at Barbam Police Out Post. Enamul Ahmed, PW 10 who was S.I. of Police at the relevant time at Barbam Police Out Post rushed to the place of occurrence for investigation after he arrested the accused who surrendered in the said Police Out Post. On completion of investigation and recording the statement of witnesses, he submitted a charge-sheet against the accused under section 302, IPC. He also prepared the Inquest Report and sent all the dead bodies to Dibrugarh for holding post mortem examination. Thereafter PW 10 sent the accused to cause his production before the Court and also to record his confessional statement before the Judicial Magistrate, PW 9. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh committed the case of the accused to the Court of Sessions for trial. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charge under section 302, IPC against the accused and while the charge was explained to him he pleaded not guilty and retracted the confessional statement as well as extra-judicial confession. In course of trial the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. The defence did not adduce any evidence. The accused was examined by the learned trial Court who recorded the statement under section 313, Cr. P.C. The plea of the defence was a total denial. Therefore, the learned trial Court examined the evidence on record and scanned the evidence of each of the witnesses and after consideration of those materials on record found the accused guilty for commission of the offence and convicted him under section 302, IPC by inflicting a sentence of life imprisonment. The accused, therefore, has preferred this appeal from jail against the aforesaid conviction and sentence inflicted on him. The appellant being indigent and not represented by any counsel to defend him in this Court, Shri Jogendra Singh, Advocate has been appointed to represent the appellant in this Court.

(3.) Before we consider the rule for imposition of extreme penalty, we ourselves are to be convinced as to the guilt of the accused and also other circumstances appearing in the case which impelled the accused 10 commit such offences. In Machhi Singh and others v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court while adopting the guidelines indicated in Bachan Singhs case {supra) described the following propositions which emerge from Bachan Singhs case.