Ranjan Debbarma vs State Of Tripura

[1] Heard Mr. S. Sarkar, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the convict-appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the Staterespondent.

[2] This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22.11.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura District, Agartala, in case No. S.T. 34 of 2010, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Section-302 of IPC and thereby sentenced him to suffer RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-[Rupees three thousand] with default stipulations.

[3] The brief facts as projected by the prosecution are as under:

"Brief facts, leading to present trial of the case is that, one Bijoy Debbarma of Ramkrishna Para P.S. Radhapur lodged an FIR in writing on 01.08.2009 at 19-05 hours to S.I Sursen Tripura of Radhapur P.S. alleging that , on that day at about 3-30 pm his daughter Jamuna had some altercation with Ranjan Debbarma (son of elder sister of informant) and at that time, Ranjan Debbarma got furious and with a spade in hand attacked Jamuna and chased her while she was fleeing away and at that time his wife Biswalaxmi debbarma was trying to resist Ranjan and at Bejram Modi Para on village road, Ranjan struck blows on the head of Biswalaxmi Debbarma and as a result Biswalaxmi received severe head injury and died on the spot.

2.1 On receipt of telephonic information, S.I. Sursen Tripura left for village Ramkrishna para after making G.D. Entry in the P.S. and on the spot received FIR from the informant and forwarded the FIR to the P.S. for registering the case. He prepared inquest report over the dead body of Biswalaxmi Debbarma and forwarded the body to the hospital for PM. Examination. Accordingly, police taken up investigation and examined material witnesses, recovered the spade which was used as weapon of offence, arrested the absconding accused, collected material evidence and on completion of investigation submitted charge- sheet against accused Ranjan Debbarma for commission of offence punishable under Section-302 of IPC."

[4] After commitment, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused-appellant under Section-302 of IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

[5] During trial, as many as 14 witnesses had adduced evidence to substantiate the charge framed against the accused- appellant. The husband of the deceased was the complainant and deposed as PW-3. PWs-1 and 4 are the daughters of the deceased. The informant-husband as well as PWs-1 and 4 claimed to be the eye witnesses of the incident of inflicting blows on the head of the deceased by the accused-appellant.

[6] PW-2 being the sister-in-law of the deceased [wife of younger brother of informant] claimed to be an eye witness of the occurrence. PW-5 being the brother of the informant who came to the house hearing about the incident. PWs-6, 7 and 10 are the residents of the locality who are witnesses to the seizure list etc. PW-8 was the Autopsy Surgeon who conducted PM. Examination over the dead body. PW-1 was the police constable who shifted the dead body and identified it. PWs-12 and 14 were the police officers who investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet. PW-13 is the Magistrate who recorded statement of PW-4 under Section-164 of Cr. P.C. at the time of investigation.

[7] At the closer of trial, the accused was examined under Section-313 of Cr. P.C. wherein, on being noticed about the incriminating evidences as surfaced against him, stated that he had been falsely implicated with the case, but, declined to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

[8] The learned Sessions Judge found the following undisputed facts as under:

"(i) The house of accused Ranjan Debbarma and the deceased Biswalaxmi Debbarma were situated side by side having same courtyard at Ramkrishnapara under Radhapur P.S.;

(ii) Accused Ranjan Debbarma is the nephew of informant (son of sister) and hence is the cousin brother of PWs-1 & 4 and the nephew of PW-2;

(iii) Biswalaxmi Debbarma died a homicidal death due to the fatal injury received by her on head and she died on the spot on village road to Bejram Modi Para."

[9] The learned Sessions Judge having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the material evidences held the accused guilty for committing murder of Biswalaxmi Debbarma, wife of the informant (PW-3) and convicted & sentenced him under Section-302 of IPC as aforestated.

[10] Hence, this appeal has been preferred before this Court.

[11] During the course of hearing, Mr. S. Sarkar, learned senior counsel appearing for the convict-appellant tried to persuade this Court that prosecution failed to substantiate the charge framed against the accused-appellant for committing murder of Biswalaxmi Debbarma by inflicting blows by a spade.

[12] Mr. Sarkar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant found contradictions in regard to the circumstance that PWs- 1, 2, 3 and 4 were the eye witnesses to the occurrence. Mr. Sarkar, drew our attention to the deposition of PW-2, Smti. Budhini Debbarma, where she stated that when she along with Saraswati and her two younger brothers were chased by the convict-appellant, out of fear they took shelter in Jungle and that after 10 minutes, people of Bejram Modi Para informed them that the mother of Jamuna was killed. The learned senior counsel referring to the statement of PW-2 raised question about the truthfulness of the statement of PW-1, Saraswati Debbarma that she witnessed the blow given by the accused- appellant on the head of her mother by the spade. He further questioned that if PWs-1 and 2 were together and they took shelter to a nearby jungle, then, how PW-1 could be an eye witness to the occurrence.

[13] Mr. Sarkar, learned senior counsel has also expressed his doubt in regard to the statement of Smti. Jamuna Debbarma (PW-4), the daughter of the deceased in her chief-examination that she noticed Ranjan Debbarma, the convict-appellant herein, inflicted three blows on the head of her mother. In his alternative submission, Mr. Sarkar, learned senior counsel submitted that it reveals from the deposition of the prosecution witnesses that there was a quarrel between the accused-appellant and Smti. Jamuna Debbarma (PW-4) and all on a sudden, the accused picked up a spade and thereafter, Jamuna tried to flee away, but, she was chased by Ranjan, the convict-appellant and having realized the seriousness of the incident, Biswalaxmi (deceased herein) tried to resist the accused from causing any harm, but, she was also chased by the convict-appellant and on the village road of Bejram Modi para the accused inflicted a blow by a spade which aptly proved that the accused had no intention to kill Biswalaxmi Debbarma.

[14] The fact of single blow was also confirmed by the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination upon the body of the deceased. Upon this circumstance, the learned senior counsel contended that the offence, if any, committed by the present accused- appellant, it would not come within the purview of Section-302 of IPC but, under Section-304 (Part-II) of the IPC.

[15] On the other hand, Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the respondent-State supporting the judgment and order of conviction and sentence as passed by the learned Sessions Judge, submitted that the prosecution had been able to prove the charge framed against the appellant. According to learned Addl. P.P., the versions of PWs-1, 2, 3 and 4 could not in any way be discarded and the learned Sessions Judge correctly believed the statements made by those witnesses while sentencing the accused under Section-302 of IPC.

[16] The learned Addl. P.P. in his attempt to demolish the submission of the learned senior counsel argued that the offence as allegedly committed by the appellant would come within the purview of Section-304(Part-II) of IPC, contended that the conduct of the accused ought to have considered when the accused chased and followed Biswalaxmi Debbarma (deceased) with the spade in his hand for a considerable time and by this conduct, the intention of the accused to kill Biswalaxmi Debbarma became very clear.

[17] Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. urged before this Court to maintain the judgment and order of conviction and sentence as passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

[18] The aforesaid rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, have led us to have a thorough survey of the evidence let in by the prosecution witnesses.

[19] Smti. Saraswati Debbarma (PW-1) in her chief- examination deposed that on 01.08.2009 at about 3-30 pm she and her sister Jamuna (PW-4) and their younger brothers, Nilmani and Parimal along with their aunt, Budhini Debbarma (PW-2), were gossiping in the courtyard when accused-appellant who used to reside in a separate hut, but, within the same courtyard, suddenly appeared and started quarreling with Jamuna on the issue, why Jamuna had been scolding her younger brothers. Jamuna took it exceptionally and asked Ranjan not to interfere in her family affairs. The appellant became furious and inflicted a lathi blow on the back of Jamuna, but, when it was protested by the person therein, Ranjan went to his hut and came out with a spade and hit Jamuna. Jamuna fled away in the jungle and they also asked Jamuna to leave the house and to go to her matrimonial home. In the meantime, her mother Biswalaxmi Debbarma, who went to take her bath, had returned and hearing the incident she became apprehensive as Ranjan started following Jamuna. Hence, Biswalaxmi Debbarma went to take care of Jamuna when PW-1 along with Budhini and her brothers followed their mother. Subsequently, all of them found that Ranjan hit her mother on the head and her mother fell down. The appellant also threatened them to kill when they fled away. Thereafter, the appellant disappeared and they went to the mother and found brain materials and other organs of her head came out and her mother died. In the meantime, local people assembled near the dead body.

In cross-examination, she stated that after one hour of incident her father came and had a discussion with her. It was almost evening when police officer came. Darogababu visited their village twice in connection with the case. She was called by police officer at Radhapur P.S. for giving her statement and she went to P.S. and gave her statement. She denied the suggestion that the appellant did not hit her mother on head by spade. She also denied the suggestion that to grab the property of the appellant; they have falsely implicated him in the case. Except denial and suggestion, there is nothing more material in the cross-examination of the witness.

[20] Jamuna Debbarma (PW-4) in her chief-examination deposed in the same tune as that of PW-1. She was very categorical to her statement that from the jungle she noticed the appellant inflicted three blows on the head of her mother and her mother fell down.

In cross-examination, it was found that she did not make any such statement before the Magistrate that the appellant inflicted three blows by a spade on the head of her mother. It was found that before the Magistrate she made a statement under Section-164(5) of Cr. P.C. that the appellant chased her with an axe. This statement provisionally marked as Exbt.B subject to proof by the Magistrate. She denied all the suggestions regarding existence of enmity between their family and the appellant and that to grab the landed property of the appellant they manufactured the present case.

[21] Smti. Budhini Debbarma (PW-2) in her chief-examination deposed in the same tune that while Jamuna was scolding her younger brothers not to quarrel with each other, the appellant appeared there and entered into an altercation with Jamuna. Jamuna asked him not to interfere with their family affairs. But, the appellant had given a lathi blow on the back side of Jamuna as Jamuna protested the acts and conduct of the appellant, but, the appellant became furious and brought a spade from his hut. PW-2 tried to resist the appellant and asked Jamuna to flee away and take shelter in her matrimonial home. At this juncture, Biswalaxmi Debbarma, the mother of Jamuna arrived and heard the incident from them. Being apprehensive, she started for the marital house of Jamuna. PW-2, Saraswati and her two younger brothers followed Biswalaxmi Debbarma and found Ranjan started searching Jamuna. On the way, the appellant also chased them and threatened to kill them and out of fear they took shelter in the jungle and after ten minutes the local people of Bejram Modi Para informed that Biswalaxmi Debbarma, mother of Jamuna was killed.

In her cross-examination, PW-2 has stated that while the appellant chased them and threatened to kill her, Saraswati and her two brothers took shelter in the jungle.

[22] Sri Bijoy Debbarma (PW-3), the husband of the deceased has deposed that he lodged the FIR being narrated the incident by his daughter Jamuna. PW-3 rejected his statement made in the complaint. Except denial, there is nothing materials in the cross-examination.

[23] PW-5 is the brother of the informant (PW-3). He deposed that he was reported about the incident by his wife Budhini Debbarma (PW-2). He identified the spade (Exbt. M.O/1) recovered from the jungle and his signature in the seizure list as a witness. He deposed that he found bloodstain on the spade. The defence could not elicit any material substance from his cross-examination.

[24] PW-6 has deposed that on 01.08.2009 he heard from the local people that Biswalaxmi was killed and over telephone he informed the matter to Radhapur P.S.

[25] PW-7 has deposed that hearing alarm he went to the spot where Biswalaxmi Debbarma was lying dead and Jamuna informed him that the appellant hit her mother on the head by a spade.

[26] PW-9 is the husband of witness Jamuna (PW-4) and he deposed that after hearing about the incident, he went to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of Biswalaxmi Debbarma.

[27] PW-10 is the seizure witness of the wearing apparels, umbrella and chappal of Bisalaxmi Debbarma.

[28] PW-8, Dr. Partha Debbarma, who conducted the postmortem Examination and he found three injuries namely:

"(i) Lacerated wound with contusion measuring 12 cm x 7 cm x cranial cavity over forehead which extended from the hair line above the bridge of nose below and laterally it extended upto 2 cm left to the mid line and 5 cm right to mid line.

(ii) Contusion measuring 3 cm x 2.5cm is present over left eye.

(iii) Contusion measuring 1.5cm x 1 cm is present over left cheek, 1 cm lateral to left nostril.

All the injuries were antimortem in nature and caused by hard blunt force. Age of the injuries were fresh.

In cross-examination the witness on specific question by the Court stated that the injuries may be inflicted by blunt side of a spade. The injuries were fresh at the time of death means death within 6 hours from the time of inflicting injuries. Injury No.1 caused shock to the brain and was responsible for death. He did not mention corresponding external injury of injury No.2 and 3 because there were no external injuries. There may not be external injuries though there may be contusion if injury is inflicted by blunt object."

[29] PW-13, the Judicial Magistrate proved Exbt.A & B in respect of the fact that Jamuna (PW-4) made statement before her that the appellant hit her mother with axe.

[30] PW-12, the I.O. has stated that accused was absconding and he was arrested by production of local people of Killa and Ramkrishna para on 16.08.2009.

[31] On close scrutiny of the evidence and materials brought on record, what have been gleaned is that Jamuna, PW-4 along with her younger brothers and aunt were gossiping in their courtyard and while she has scolding her younger brothers, the appellant who used to live in a separate hut of the same courtyard, suddenly appeared and interfered with the matter. Jamuna (PW-4) was not happy to such interference of the appellant in their family matters. The appellant gave a blow with a lathi in the back side on the person of Jamunn when she protested. That made the appellant furious, and he went to his own hut and brought a spade. Considering the seriousness of the incident, the aunt, Budhini Debbarma (PW-2) tried to resist the appellant and asked Jamuna to go back to her matrimonial home. But, the appellant chased her, and at that instance, Biswalaxmi Debbarma, the mother of Jamuna who went to take bath, returned and became apprehensive to the conduct of the appellant that her daughter was being chased by the appellant with a spade. Jamuna took shelter in a nearby jungle. Biswalaxmi Debbarma was following the appellant. Both the appellant and Biswalaxmi Debbarma were followed by PWs-2 and 3 and two brothers of Jamuna. They noticed that the appellant inflicted blow upon the head of Biswalaxmi Debbarma by the spade which was in his hand and she fell down. They raised alarm and the nearby people gathered at the spot.

[32] There may be some discrepancies in regard to the circumstance that when the witnesses took shelter at jungle, then, how they (PWs-1, 2, 3 and 4) had noticed the occurrence. According to us, those are very minor discrepancies which shall not come in way to decide the culpability of the act of the appellant. The evidence is galore in regard to the circumstances that there was quarrel and the appellant brought out the spade. There was altercation between PW-4 and the appellant, when the appellant gave a blow on the back of Jamuna by a lathi.

[33] Having faced protest, the appellant became furious and brought a spade from his own hut. PW-2 Budhini, the aunt of Jamuna tried to resist the appellant to cause any harm and at the same time, she told Jamuna to leave their house and to return back to her matrimonial house. When Jamuna was proceeding towards her matrimonial home, being found that the appellant was chasing her, she took shelter in a nearby jungle. Biswalaxmi Debbarma (now deceased) having informed about the incident followed the appellant when PWs-2, 3 and 4 noticed the appellant inflicting blows by a spade in his hand on the head of Biswalaxmi Debbarma, and she fell down.

[34] The circumstance that there was none but the appellant alone who was chasing Jamuna, and also found Biswalaxmi Debbarma, has been established beyond any reasonable doubt. Even, for a moment, if we believe that none of PWs-2, 3 and 4 had seen the incident of inflicting blows upon the head of the deceased, but, since it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that at that moment there was none other than the appellant who was following Biswalaxmi Debbarma with a spade in his hand, is sufficient to prove the complicity of the appellant in regard to the killing of Smti. Biswalaxmi Debbarma applying the theory of "last seen together". The subsequent conduct that he disappeared from the spot and later on, he was produced by the villagers before the police station, is also a circumstance to the chain of entire events.

[35] In our ultimate analysis on all the incriminating and mitigating facts and circumstances, we are unable to record a different finding as that of the finding of guilt held by the learned Sessions Judge in convicting the appellant. However, on proven circumstances, it has become prominent that the appellant made a single blow, and there was no premeditation, the whole thing happened in a single transaction out of a sudden quarrel when, in all probability, the appellant is found to be unable to resist his anger.

[36] In our considered view, had there been any intention to kill or commit murder of Biswalaxmi Debbarma, then, the appellant could have inflicted multiple blows on the persons of Biswalaxmi Debbarma which has prompted us to hold that the episode of inflicting fatal blow by the appellant had occurred in quick succession, and in the heat of patience which has its origin from the circumstance of altercation entered between him and Jamuna. As such, we find sufficient materials to convert the sentence as imposed upon the appellant to Section-304(Part-II) of IPC from Section-302 of IPC.

[37] It has been stated that the appellant has been suffering sentence from the year 2009 and already, he has suffered RI for more than 11 years. Considering the overall evidence, the sentence which has already been undergone by the appellant is set off. Resultantly, the convict Ranjan Debbarma be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Consequently, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is upheld but the sentence is modified to the extent as indicated above. The appeal stands partly allowed, in the above terms.

Send down the LCRs.