1

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE AT JORHAT

Present : Mr. Raktim Duarah, B.Sc., LL.B., AJS

Sessions Judge, Jorhat

JUDGMENT IN SESSIONS CASE NO. 13 (J-J) OF 2015

(G.R. Case No. 2829 of 2014)

Teok P.S. Case No. 378 of 2014

Committing Magistrate:-

Sri Dipu Barman,

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Jorhat District

State of Assam

-Versus-

Sri Bijay Pan Tanti,

Son of Sri Ugrasen Pan Tanti,

Resident of Majnoi Tea Estate,

P.S. Teok,

District-Jorhat. …. Accused

APPEARANCES:

For the State : Sri M.R. Barooah, Public Prosecutor

For the Accused: Sri Simanta Kumar Barthakur, State Defence

Advocate

CHARGE FRAMED UNDER SECTION 302 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE

Date of institution of the case : 17-11-2014

Date of Charge : 20-03-2015

Date of prosecution evidence : 05-05-2015; 15-06-2015; 27-07-2015;

17-09-2015; 04-01-2016
 2

Statement of Accused

Recorded on : 28-01-2016

Date of Argument : 05-02-2016 & 19/02/2016

Date of Judgment : 18-03-2016

J U D G M E N T

1). The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17/11/2014 Sri Purna Jyoti
Kalita, the then In-charge, Selenghat O.P. under Teok P.S. received telephonic
information from one Sri Moni Pan Tanti that the accused Sri Bijay Pan Tanti had
killed his wife Rohdoi Pan Tanti inside his house with the help of an axe and the
accused had also prevented the people from entering into his house by showing
them the axe which was in his hand. The In-charge, Selenghat O.P. under Teok
P.S. entered the information in General Diary Entry Register bearing G.D. Entry
No. 334 dated 17/11/2014 and thereafter he proceeded towards the place of
occurrence, i.e., the house of accused Sri Bijay Pan Tanti.

The said information was registered as Teok P.S. Case No. 378/2014
under Section 302 IPC.

2). Sri Purna Jyoti Kalita [PW-7] reached the house of the accused and
noticed the accused in his house holding an axe in his hand which was seized by
him vide seizure-list [Exhibit-1] where he put his signature Exhibit-1 [3].
Thereafter, he arrested the accused. He entered into the house of the accused
by breaking open the door and witnessed the body of Rohdoi Pan Tanti in a pool
of blood in the floor of their house and at that time she was alive. He sent the
injured to Jorhat Medical College & Hospital for better medical treatment where
the injured succumbed to her injuries on the next day of incident which was
informed by the In-charge of Jorhat Medical College & Hospital Out Post to the
Officer-in-charge, Jorhat P.S. The aforesaid In-charge of the said O.P. of J.M.C.H.
also sent requisition before the D.C., Jorhat for an Executive Magistrate to hold
inquest over the dead body. The Executive Magistrate, Jorhat, held inquest over
the dead body in presence of witnesses vide Inquest Report [Exhibit-2] and
thereafter the body was sent for post-mortem examination.
 3

He again visited the place of occurrence and drew Sketch Map of

the site of occurrence with index vide Exhibit-4 and put his signature vide
Exhibit-4 [1].

3). The body of the deceased was subsequently medically examined

by Dr. Mamata Devi [PW-6] and on completion of investigation, police submitted
charge-sheet against the accused under Section 302 IPC.

4). Since the case against the accused is exclusively triable by the
court of Sessions, the case was committed to this court and on 20/03/2015
charge was framed against accused Sri Bijay Pan Tanti under Section 302 IPC.
The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried when he was explained
about the charges.

5). The prosecution, to bring home the charge, examined as many

as 7 [seven] witnesses including the medical officer and investigating officer. The
stand of the accused taken in the statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
is that at the time of incident he was in drunken state and out of intoxication he
committed the alleged offence. The accused did not adduce any defence
evidence.

6). Point for determination:-

Whether on or about 17/11/2014 the accused Sri Bijay Pan Tanti

committed murder of his wife Rohdoi Pan Tanti by assaulting her with an axe
with the intention of causing her death and as such guilty of committing an
offence under Section 302 IPC?

7). DISCUSSION, DECISIONS AND REASONS THEREOF:

Mr. Mukti Ranjan Barooah, learned Public Prosecutor, has submitted

that the prosecution has been able to prove the case which is based on
circumstantial evidence as there is no eyewitness in the instant case. He has
submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the circumstances and
also the chain of circumstances is complete in the instant case pointing the guilt
towards the accused and as such the accused deserves to be convicted. He has
further argued that the accused has admitted in his statement that he had
committed the offence under influence of liquor which completes the chain of
 4

circumstances and acts as an additional circumstance appearing against the

accused.

8). Per-contra, Sri Simanta Kumar Barthakur, learned State Defence

Counsel appearing for the accused, has vehemently argued that the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove the circumstances appearing against the accused
and there being no iota of evidence to prove the motive of the alleged offence
the accused deserves to be acquitted. He has further argued that it is established
position of law that in case of circumstantial evidence the motive must be
established and in the instant case there is hardly any whisper regarding motive
behind the alleged offence and the chain of circumstances is also not completed.
He further argued that even the prosecution has failed to prove the
circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and not a single witness has established
any circumstance against the accused and as such the accused deserves to be
acquitted. Besides, the second leg of argument advanced by the learned counsel
is that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are not cogent and reliable and
there being no iota of evidence to establish the above fact, the prosecution has
not been able to prove any circumstance appearing against the accused and
hence this is a fit case for acquittal.

9). The prosecution case is based entirely on the circumstantial evidences

as there is no eye witness to the occurrence. As such, it is to be examined as to
whether the circumstances appearing against the accused have been proved by
the prosecution and the chain of circumstances is completed pointing the finger
of guilt towards the accused and no other else. As stated herein above, the
prosecution has examined as many as 7 (seven) witnesses including the I.O. viz.
Mr. Purna Jyoti kalita (PW-7) and the Medical Officer viz. Dr. Mamata Devi (PW-
6) who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the victim Rahdoi Pan
Tanti. According to PW-6, she conducted the autopsy over the dead body on
18/11/2014 when she was posted in the Jorhat Medical College and Hospital in
the department of Forensic Medicine. She deposed that she found that the
victim’s body was cold on touch and there was rigor-mortis. She also found that
there were five (5) injuries on her person which are as follows:

i. A chop wound of size 3.8 cm x 3.2 cm over the right side frontal
scalp 0.5 cm from midline and 12 cm from right medial eyebrow
 5

which is brain deep. Margin of the wound is clean cut, contused

and wide gaping of the wound is present. Blood clots are adherent
to wound margin which resist washing under tap water.
ii. A chop wound of size 2.9 cm x 2.6 cm just behind the injury
number one which is brain deep and 2 cm from mid line and 14
cm from right lateral eyebrow. Margin of the wound is clean cut,
contused and wide gaping of the wound is present. Blood clots are
adherent to wound margin which resist washing under tap water.
iii. A chop wound of size 4 cm x 3.2 cm over right parietal scalp
which is brain deep and 2 cm from mid line and 16 cm from right
medial eyebrow.
iv. An incised wound of size 4 cm x 3 cm over parietal scalp 8 cm
over right ear and 13 cm from lateral eyebrow which is brain
deep. Margin of the wound is clean cut, contused and wide gaping
of the wound is present. Blood clots are adherent to wound
margin which resist washing under tap water.
v. An incised wound of size 5 cm x 3.4 cm over parietal scalp 3 cm
above right ear and 8 cm above lateral angle of eye which is brain
deep. Margin of the wound is clean cut.

PW-6 opined that the cause of death was due to coma as a result of
injuries sustained over head as described and all of them were ante-mortem in
nature. The said injuries were caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon which are
homicidal in nature and the injury no.1 was sufficient to cause instantaneous
death to a person in ordinary course of nature. During her cross-examination the
witness has further clarified that the injury No-1 which was brain deep was
sufficient to cause instantaneous death to a person in normal course of nature
and all the injuries were on the head of the deceased.

10). It may be pertinent to mention herein that it is of common knowledge

that the head, where the brain being one of the vital organs of body is present in
a human, is a sensitive part of the body and if the head is severely injured by a
sharp heavy weapon, the injury may cause instantaneous death to the person. It
is of common experience and knowledge that even if the head is injured with a
blunt weapon or is somehow hit by a blunt object with heavy force, the same
 6

may cause haemorrhage causing death. Therefore, any person giving even a
single blow on the head of a person with a sharp heavy weapon may cause
death of that person and it can be safely held that the person giving such a blow
had knowledge that it might cause death to that person. But when the injuries
are multiple, that too, concentrated on the head; it can be easily understood that
such blows were given deliberately to cause death of that person and for no
other purpose, whatsoever. This intention becomes more prominent when such
blows are given by a heavy sharp cutting weapon and there cannot be a second
thought except that the person dealing with such multiple blows had clear and
distinct intention to cause death of the other person and as such guilty of
committing murder.

11). In the instant case, it is clear from the evidence of PW-6 that the
deceased was given multiple blows by a heavy sharp cutting weapon. All the
blows were given on the head and as a result she sustained 5 (five) injuries. The
injuries were brain deep which would go to show that the force used by the
person was excessive and it was not light. PW-6 has proved the post-mortem
report (Ext-3) and her signature (Ext-3(1)). The injury No-1 was sufficient to
cause death of the victim. Therefore, it can be safely held that the person who
gave those blows had clear intention to cause death of the deceased. Now, the
question is who had given such deadly blows to the deceased?

12). As stated above, there is no eye witness to the prosecution.

However, the witnesses who arrived at the place of occurrence immediately after
the occurrence took place have been brought by the prosecution to prove its
case. Sri Anil Nayak (PW-1), Sri Mantu Hazam (PW-2), Sri Mahi Chandra Bawri
(PW-3), Sri Muni Pan Tanti (PW-4) and Sri Ugrasen Pan Tanti (PW-5) are the
persons who arrived at the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence
took place. Sri Purna Jyoti Kalita, the investigating officer (PW-7) also arrived at
the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence.

13). PW-1 has deposed that on the day of occurrence when he was
coming home from the field, he noticed the accused Sri Bijay Pan Tanti, the
husband of the deceased, in the courtyard of his house and at that time he was
holding an axe in his hand. He confessed before him that he had killed his wife
and the other villagers were also present at that time. They also told him that the
 7

accused had murdered his wife. He also deposed that the accused even
confessed before police and other co-villagers that he had murdered his wife. He
also noticed blood on the body of the accused but did not see the victim.

14). PW-2 has also deposed that the house of the accused is situated in
front of his house and on the day of occurrence, at about 3 p.m. he heard the
shout of the deceased. At that time he was present in his house. Hearing the
shouting of the deceased, he came out from his house and when he proceeded
towards the house of the accused, he saw the accused coming out of the house
holding an axe in his hand. The accused seeing him confessed before him
immediately that he had murdered his wife by that axe. PW-2 got shocked seeing
the situation and hearing about the confession and out of fear he immediately
returned to his house. Thereafter he went to the police station in his motorcycle
and when he returned, he saw the dead body lying in the court yard. In the
meantime police also arrived and seized the axe from the accused vide Ext-1 and
he put his signature vide Ext-1(1). By that time, the accused was apprehended
by the villagers. He also deposed that the accused also gave his signature on
Ext-1 and Ext-1(2) is his signature.

During his cross-examination, he affirmed that he could learn about

the occurrence from the mouth of the accused and when he came back from the
police station, he saw the dead body was lying in the courtyard of the house. He
categorically deposed that he saw the accused being apprehended by the police
and not by the villagers and the axe was found lying near the bamboo shed
which was led and shown by the accused. He further deposed that the house of
Anil Nayak (PW-1) and Mahi Chandra Bawri (PW-3) are situated near the house
of the accused.

15). From the evidence of PW-2, it is clear that he was the first person
who saw the accused immediately after the occurrence. He heard the shouting of
the deceased and thereafter when he came out of his house, he saw the
accused. It is his evidence that he found the accused holding an axe in his hand
and he confessed before him that he committed murder of his wife. During his
cross-examination also he did not change his version and maintained that he saw
the accused coming out of his house by holding an axe in his hand immediately
after the occurrence. It is his evidence that his house is situated in front of the
 8

house of the accused and as such it is very much probable that he could hear the
shouting of the deceased. This witness is reliable as his evidence is cogent and
trustworthy and his truthfulness could easily be perceived as he has categorically
deposed that seeing the accused and listening his confession, he got shocked
and out of fear he came back home. This is the exact/natural reaction of a
person when he suddenly comes out of his house hearing something and finds
his front door neighbour with an axe, who spontaneously tells him that he had
committed murder of his wife with the axe which he was holding. Therefore this
witness has gained confidence of this court.

16). From the reading of the aforesaid two witnesses, it is clear that PW-2
reached the place of occurrence and saw the accused first and PW-1 came much
later and when he saw the accused, at that time already the villagers had
gathered in the house of the accused and even police also arrived. But when PW-
2 saw the accused for the first time, the police was not present and as such the
extra-judicial confession made by the accused to PW-2 was voluntary and
spontaneous immediately made after the occurrence and the same was not
made in the custody of the police. Therefore, the extra-judicial confession made
by the accused to PW-2 is admissible in evidence. Besides, there being no enmity
between the accused and PW-2, there was no occasion for PW-2 to depose
falsely that the accused had confessed about his guilt. Therefore it can be held
from the evidence of both PW-1 and PW-2 that they saw the accused holding an
axe immediately after the occurrence and he confessed about his guilt voluntarily
in front of PW-2. The aforesaid witnesses have corroborated the evidence of
each other on material particulars and as such the evidence of both the
witnesses is reliable and trustworthy.

17). PW-3 has deposed that his house is situated in front of the house
of the accused and on the day of occurrence when he came back home from the
fields at about 4 p.m. he saw the dead body of the victim lying in the kitchen. At
that time police was present and accused was present inside the house.
However, when he was cross-examined, he deposed that he did not see anything
in the hands of the accused, although in his examination-in-chief he deposed
that he saw the accused holding one axe in his hand. He also deposed that he
does not know as to from where the axe was brought by the accused and
 9

produced before the police. He reiterated that he saw the dead body lying in the
kitchen.

18). This witness seems to be not wholly trustworthy. From his evidence it
is clear that he arrived at the place of occurrence a little lately, at about 4 p.m.
and by that time police also arrived and he saw the dead body in the kitchen. But
he did not see the accused holding an axe and he also does not know as to from
which place the accused brought the axe. However, from his evidence it can be
safely held that it is the accused who had produced the axe to the police. He was
only told by the villagers that the accused committed murder of his wife and as
such it can be held that the accused did not confess about his guilt in front of
PW-3 and PW-3 has no personal knowledge about the involvement of the
accused in the offence.

19). PW-4 however has deposed that at about 3 p.m. on the date of
occurrence he went to fetch water and hearing the shouts coming out from the
house of the accused, he went to his house and saw that the accused was inside
the house holding an axe and was not allowing anyone to enter into the house.
Many people had gathered at his house by that time. He is the younger brother
of the accused and he informed the police about the occurrence. Police
thereafter arrived at the place and broke open the door and apprehended the
accused from inside the house. Police also found an axe in the hand of the
accused. PW-4 witnessed the dead body of the victim lying on the floor inside the
house. He also noticed one injury over the head of the victim and blood was
oozing out from the injuries. She was rushed to the Jorhat Medical College and
Hospital and she succumbed to her injuries. The body was sent for post-mortem
after conducting inquest. He proved his signature on the inquest report vide Ext-
2(1).

During his cross-examination, he deposed that when he arrived at

the house of the accused, he found that the accused was inside the house and
the housed was locked from inside. Many people gathered in the house and the
police arrived at the place of occurrence about half an hour. He admitted that
police did not allow the people to enter into the house and police took out the
axe from inside the house.
 10

20). This witness is the brother of the accused and there is no bad blood
between the two brothers. The said fact has not been surfaced up during his
cross-examination and it was not even suggested to him. Therefore, his
testimony cannot be viewed doubtfully. In fact, he being one of the close
relatives of the accused is expected to depose falsely to save the skin of the
accused. But in the instant case it is not so. He has boldly deposed that he saw
the accused inside the house holding an axe and also the victim lying on the floor
with injuries on her person. It is his categorical evidence that the accused was
resisting people from entering into his house and he had to be apprehended by
police by breaking the door.

21). This piece of evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW-7. He

has deposed that he was informed over telephone by PW-4 at about 4.05 p.m.
that the accused had murdered his wife inside his house with an axe and had
been preventing the people from entering into his house by showing the axe. He
then made a G.D. Entry being no. 334 dated 17/11/2014 and proceeded towards
the place of occurrence. At that time he was posted at Selenghat out post under
Teok Police Station. From the conjoint reading of the aforesaid two witnesses it
can be held that PW-4 saw the accused inside the house with an axe and his wife
lying on the floor and immediately he called the police over telephone.
Thereafter, police arrived at the place of occurrence.

22). PW-7 also deposed that when he arrived at the house of the
accused, he broke open the door and apprehended the accused. He also seized
the axe from the hands of the accused and found the victim, who was alive at
that time, lying on the floor in a pool of blood. He sent her to the hospital where
she succumbed to her injuries on the next day. Inquest was done subsequently
by one magistrate in his presence and he proved Ext-2, the inquest report.
Thereafter the body was sent for post-mortem. He again went to the place of
occurrence and drew sketch map vide Ext-4 and he proved his signature Ext-4(1)
appearing thereon. He also proved the certified copy of the G.D. Entry No. 334
dated 17/11/2014 vide Ext-5 and his signature Ext-5(1).

23). During his cross-examination, he deposed that the accused was

standing near his house holding the axe in his hand and he examined the
witnesses after receipt of the F.I.R on 18/11/2014 at 9 p.m. he also deposed that
 11

he did not send the weapon of offence to the F.S.L and did not show it to the
Medical Officer who conducted the autopsy. From the evidence of PW-4 and PW-
7 it can be safely held that the accused was inside the house by holding one axe
in his hand and police had to break into the house. Although, PW-7 deposed in
his cross-examination that he found the accused near the house, it does not
shake the very back bone of the prosecution case in as much as the same is a
minor contradiction and from the evidence of PW-4 it has been proved that the
accused was inside the house when police arrived. It is also clear that the
accused was resisting people from entering into his house and the police had to
break open the door to enter inside the house.

24). PW-5 is the father of both the accused and PW-4. He also deposed
that on the date of occurrence when he was going towards the tea garden, he
saw many persons gathering in the house of the accused. He also went there
and saw the accused was holding one axe in his hand and was outside his house.
Out of fear nobody tried to enter into the house and police took him out from the
house alongwith the axe in his hand. He also saw the victim in injured condition
and she was sent to the hospital where she died next day. During his cross-
examination he reiterated that the police took out him from the house
compound.

25). PW-5 is a close relative of the accused and there is no reasonable

ground to disbelieve this witness. He has categorically deposed that he saw the
accused outside the house with an axe in his hand and the victim way lying
inside the house being injured. From the evidence of the all the aforesaid
witnesses it can be safely held that the prosecution has been able to prove the
following circumstances against the accused beyond reasonable doubt:-

i) Shouting of the deceased was heard at about 3 p.m.

coming from the house of the accused,
ii) Hearing the shouting PW-2 went outside his house,
iii) PW-2 saw that the accused was coming out of his
house with an axe in his hand,
iv) The accused told PW-2 that he had murdered his wife
with that axe,
 12

v) PW-2 , being shocked and out of fear, came back to his

house and thereafter went to the police station in his
motor-cycle,
vi) In the meantime, PW-4 also heard the shouting from
the house of the accused,
vii) He went towards the house of the accused and saw
that he has locked himself up, inside the house,
viii) PW-4 saw that the victim was lying injured on the floor
of the house and the accused was holding the axe in
his hand,
ix) Many people already gathered in the house of the
accused and the accused was not allowing anyone
from entering into his house,
x) PW-4 informed the PW-7 over telephone about the
occurrence and the fact that accused was not allowing
anyone from entering into his house,
xi) In the meantime PW-1 and PW-5 also reached the
house of the accused and saw the accused holding the
axe and present in the house,
xii) Police arrived and apprehended the accused from the
inside of the house,
xiii) Police seized the axe from the hand of the accused,
xiv) Police took out the accused from the compound and
found the victim lying injured on the floor of the house,
xv) The victim was lying injured in a pool of blood in the
kitchen of the house,
xvi) The victim was taken out from inside for sending her to
the hospital and then PW-2 arrived coming back from
the police station and saw her in the courtyard of the
house,
xvii) The victim died next day due to the injuries she
sustained,
xviii) The victim received five injuries on her head out of
which one injury is fatal and those were caused by
heavy sharp cutting weapon and axe is such a weapon.
 13

26). The learned counsel for the accused has submitted that the evidence
of the witnesses are doubtful as the same are not consistent as to from where
the accused was apprehended. He has submitted that some witnesses have
deposed that he was inside the house whereas the others have deposed that he
was outside the house and as such the same cannot be relied on. It is true that
some witnesses have deposed that the accused was inside and some have
deposed that he was outside the house. In view of this court, the same is very
much natural as each and every witness has arrived at the place of occurrence at
different point of time. At first when PW-2 saw the accused, he was coming out
of the house after committing the offence. But when people gathered, it is very
natural, that he went inside the house and locked himself up. Besides, from the
time of occurrence till the arrival of the police, considerable time has elapsed and
it is not expected from anyone who had committed murder of his wife would sit
silently in the same place as a statue. Naturally he would be under tremendous
mental agony and trauma after committing such a crime and would naturally
move restlessly from here and there. Naturally he would come out from the
house on some intervals to chase away the gathering people and after chasing
them away by threatening with his axe, he would retreat and take shelter inside
the house. Therefore, it does not at all cast any doubt on the prosecution case.

27). The learned counsel has also argued that it is doubtful that the accused
had shown the axe to the police. This court does not find sufficient force in the
said submission as because the police had seized the axe from the hands of the
accused itself and hence the question of showing the axe does not arise in the
instant case. The evidence of PW-7 is reliable and cogent and moreover the
same is corroborated by independent witnesses on material particulars. Hence, it
can be safely held that the axe had been recovered by the I.O from the hands of
the accused himself. In State Govt. of NCT, Delhi Vs. Sunil and another
(2001)1 SCC 652,it was held as follows:

“19. Hence it is a fallacious impression that when recovery is effected pursuant

to any statement made by the accused the document prepared by the
Investigating Officer contemporaneous with such recovery must necessarily be
attested by independent witnesses. of course, if any such statement leads to
recovery of any article it is open to the Investigating Officer to take the signature
of any person present at that time, on the document prepared for such recovery.
 14

But if no witness was present or if no person had agreed to affix his signature on
the document, it is difficult to lay down, as a proposition of law, that the
document so prepared by the police officer must be treated as tainted and the
recovery evidence unreliable. the court has to consider the evidence of the
Investigating Officer who deposed to the fact of recovery based on the statement
elicited from the accused on its own worth.
20. We feel that it is an archaic notion that actions of the police officer should be
approached with initial distrust. We are aware that such a notion was lavishly
entertained during British period and policemen also knew about it. Its hang over
persisted during post-independent years but it is time now to start placing at
least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the police. At any
rate, the court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are
untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the presumption should be the other way
around. That official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise
principle of presumption and recognised even by the legislature. Hence, when a
police officer gives evidence in court that a certain article was recovered by him
on the strength of the statement made by the accused it is open to the court to
believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It is
for the accused, through cross-examination of witnesses or through any other
materials, to show that the evidence of the police officer is either unreliable or at
least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. If the court has any good
reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the court could
certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was
present at the time of recovery. But it is not a legally approvable procedure to
presume the police action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action
merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent
persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions.”

28). The I.O of a case is like any other witness and his evidence is reliable if
the same if found to be trustworthy by the court. Merely because, he is an official
witness who conducted the investigation, his evidence cannot be discarded. It is
the evidence that PW-7, on being intimated by PW-4 over telephone immediately
came to the place of occurrence and apprehended the accused and also seized
an axe from his hand. It was done in discharge of his official duties and there is
no reason as to why he would adduce false evidence. As such it can be safely
 15

held that the axe was seized from the hands of the accused by PW-7. The
learned counsel has further submitted that the I.O did not send the axe and the
blood stained shirt of the accused to the F.S.L and as such there being no
evidence to show that the axe was used for committing the offence and the
blood stains were that of the victim remains doubtful. He submitted that the
investigation is defective on that count and has shaken the prosecution case.
Besides, he has vehemently argued that the so called confession made before
the police officer cannot be at all, the foundation of conviction of the accused
and as such the accused may be acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt. To
buttress his submissions, he has relied on the decisions rendered by Hon’ble
Gauhati High Court in Crl Appeal(J) no. 65/2006- Rahul @ Rahul Dosad
vs. The state of Assam, Hon’ble Apex court in CRL.L.P. 385/2012- State
of NCT of Delhi vs. Jamil @ Kalu and Appeal (Crl.)No.570/1996 –State
of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kriparam and Criminal appeal (D.B) No.
541/2006-Lala Hansda vs. state of Jharkhand passed by the Hon’ble
Jharkhand High Court. In all the aforesaid cases, it was held that when the
weapon used in the offence is not sent for F.S.L to verify the origin of the blood,
it becomes fatal for the prosecution. This court is unable to accept the
submissions made by the learned counsel on this point. It is true that the blood
stains may be verified with the origin to see as to whether the same is of some
human or animal and if it is of some human, then whether it matches with the
victim or not. This test is required and is deemed to be essential when the
weapon is found from another place lying in abundance, not from the place of
occurrence but from a distance, recovered at the instance of the accused on
being led by him or being discovered on some later point of time and being not
recovered from the hands of the accused. This is because, non- examination of
the stains of blood might leave some doubt regarding the involvement of the
accused as well as the weapon in the offence. But when the weapon is itself
recovered from the hands of the accused and all the witnesses have seen him
holding the same immediately after the occurrence, it is not necessary to send
the same for serological tests and non-examination of the same is not fatal.
Besides, even if it is assumed that the investigation is defective and the axe
ought to have been sent for the tests, the same would not vitiate the trial and
benefit the accused as it is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisdiction that even
if the investigation in not free from some defect, the same cannot be the reason
 16

to throw away the prosecution case entirely when the witnesses have proved the
facts and supported the prosecution case. At this juncture this court relies on a
decision reported in 2013(12) SCC 746-Manoj Singh vs. State of Punjab,
wherein it was observed as follows:
“As far as non-seizure of the blood-stained clothes and blood stains from the
seat of the car are concerned, it does not create a dent in the prosecution
version. In this context, the authority in State of Rajasthan v. Arjun Singh and
others[(2011) 9 SCC 115] can profitably be referred to. In the said decision the
Court has opined that absence of evidence regarding recovery of used pellets,
bloodstained clothes, etc. cannot be taken or construed as no such occurrence
had taken place. It has been further observed that when there is ample
unimpeachable ocular evidence and the same has received corroboration from
the medical evidence, even the non-recovery of weapon does not affect the
prosecution case.”

In Govindaraju vs. State of Srirampuram (2012)4 SCC 722, the

Hon’ble Apex Court held:

“30. It cannot be stated as a rule that a police officer can or cannot be a

sole eye-witness in a criminal case. It will always depend upon the facts of
a given case. If the testimony of such a witness is reliable, trustworthy,
cogent and duly corroborated by other witnesses or admissible evidences,
then the statement of such witness cannot be discarded only on the
ground that he is a police officer and may have some interest in success
of the case. It is only when his interest in the success of the case is
motivated by overzealousness to an extent of his involving innocent
people; in that event, no credibility can be attached to the statement of
such witness.

31. This Court in the case of Girja Prasad (supra) while particularly referring to
the evidence of a police officer, said that it is not the law that Police witnesses
should not be relied upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is
corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. The
presumption applies as much in favour of a police officer as any other person.
There is also no rule of law which lays down that no conviction can be recorded
 17

on the testimony of a police officer even if such evidence is otherwise reliable

and trustworthy. The rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their
evidence. If such a presumption is raised against the police officers without
exception, it will be an attitude which could neither do credit to the magistracy
nor good to the public, it can only bring down the prestige of the police
administration.

32. Wherever, the evidence of the police officer, after careful scrutiny, inspires
confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form the basis of
conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality does not
in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case. The courts have
also expressed the view that no infirmity attaches to the testimony of the police
officers merely because they belong to the police force and there is no rule of
law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the
evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some
independent evidence. Such reliable and trustworthy statement can form the
basis of conviction.

33. Rather than referring to various judgments of this Court on this issue,
suffices it to note that even in the case of Girja Prasad (supra), this Court noticed
the judgment of the Court in the case of Aher Raja Khima v. State of
Saurashtra AIR 1956 SC 217, a judgment pronounced more than half a
century ago noticing the principle that the presumption that a person acts
honestly applies as much in favour of a police officer as of other persons and it is
not a judicial approach to distrust and suspect him without good grounds
therefore. This principle has been referred to in a plethora of other cases as well.
Some of the cases dealing with the aforesaid principle are being referred
hereunder.

34. In Tahir v. State (Delhi) [(1996) 3 SCC 338], dealing with a similar
question, the Court held as under:-

"6. ..... In our opinion no infirmity attaches to the testimony of the police
officials, merely because they belong to the police force and there is no
rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be
recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless
corroborated by some independent evidence. The Rule of Prudence,
 18

however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of their evidence, since

they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by
them. Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny,
inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can
form basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of
the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way
affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case."

35. The obvious result of the above discussion is that the statement of a police
officer can be relied upon and even form the basis of conviction when it is
reliable, trustworthy and preferably corroborated by other evidence on record.”

29). Besides, it is the evidence that the accused after committing the
offence was found loitering with the axe in his hand, which is a circumstance
against him. In a similar situation it was held in Chara Mura vs. State of
Assam -2013(5) GLT 336 that when the accused was found loitering with the
weapon immediately after the occurrence, it would be a relevant circumstance
against him. Besides, the accused made an extra-judicial confession before PW2
before arrival of the police and as such it is admissible in evidence and is a
relevant circumstance. This court relies on a catena of decisions reported in
2001(12) GLT 74-Baharon Bibi Vs. state of Assam, AIR 1985 SC 1678-
narain Singh vs. state of M.P, Baldev Raj vs. State of Haryana-AIR 1991
SC 37, State of Punjab vs. Gurdeep Singh-1999(7) SCC 714 and Sarju
Teli vs. State of Assam-2013(3)GLT 338.

30). In Chanad Bridhi Chand Sarda vs. State of Maharastra-AIR

1984 SC 1622 the five golden principles of circumstantial evidence were laid
down as follows:
a) “The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn
should be fully established;
b) The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt
and the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any
other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

c) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;

d) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be

proved; and
 19

e) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any

reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused.

These five golden principles constitute the Panchasheel of the proof of a case
based on circumstantial evidence and in the absence of a corpus deliciti.”

31). In the instant case, the prosecution has been able to prove the
circumstances enumerated herein above appearing against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt and the chain of circumstances is also completed. As such, this
court has no hesitation but to hold that the proved circumstances have pointed
the finger of guilt towards the accused only and no one else and as such it is
held that the accused Sri Bijay Pan Tanti is guilty for committing offence u/s 302
IPC. It is held that the accused had intentionally caused death of his wife Rahdoi
Pan Tanti by causing multiple injuries on her head with an axe and as such liable
to be punished. In addition to the aforesaid circumstances, the accused took a
false plea during his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C that he was under the
influence of liquor and as such is not aware of the offence which is an additional
circumstance against him and acts as a missing link as observed in Anthony
D’Souza vs. State of Karnataka-AIR 2003 SC 258, Shanti Lakara Vs.
State,NCT of Delhi-2009 Cr.L.J 4589(4593) and Sidharth Vasisth vs.
State, NCT of Delhi-(2010)6 SCC 1.

32). In view of the above discussions, it is held that the accused is guilty
of committing an offence u/s 302 IPC and the prosecution has been able to
establish the case against him beyond reasonable doubt. For the reasons cited
above, this court is unable to agree with the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the accused and the decisions cited in his defence, are not applicable
in the instant case due to the varying facts of those cases and the case in hand.
Besides, when the circumstances are proved by way of cogent evidence, the
motive is not required to be proved.

33). Heard the accused Sri Bijay Pan Tanti on the point of sentence. He
has stated that he is innocent and leniency may be shown to him. Upon hearing
the accused and the learned counsel for the parties, the accused is hereby
 20

sentences to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.
10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand], i/d., to undergo Simple Imprisonment for
another period of 1 (one) year for committing an offence u/s 302 IPC. The period
already spent by the accused in jail is to be set off. Send the accused to jail hajot
to serve the sentence and give a free copy of this Judgment and order to the
accused immediately. His bail bond is extended for another period of 6(six)
months in terms of section 437-A Cr.P.C. The Material Exhibit-1 is to be disposed
of in due process of law.
Send a copy of the judgment to the District Magistrate, Jorhat.

33). The judgment is pronounced in the open Court on this 18th day of
March 2016 under my hand and seal.

Sessions Judge, Jorhat

Continued to Page No:-21

 21

ANNEXURES:-

PROSECUTION WITNESSES:-

PW-1 Sri Anil Nayak.

PW-2 Sri Mantu Hazam.
PW-3 Sri Mahi Chandra Bawri.
PW-4 Sri Muni Pan Tanti.
PW-5 Sri Ugrasen Pan Tanti.
PW-6 Dr. Mamata Devi.
PW-7 Sri Purna Jyoti Kalita, Investigating Officer.

COURT WITNESS:- NIL

EXHIBITS FOR THE PROSECUTION:-

Exhibit-1 Seizure-list

Exhibit-2 Inquest Report

Exhibit-3 Post-mortem report

Exhibit-4 Sketch Map of the site of occurrence with index
Exhibit-5 G.D. Entry No. 334 dated 17/11/2014

MATERIAL EXHIBIT – An axe.

DEFENCE WITNESSES:- NONE

Sessions Judge, Jorhat.

Typed & transcribed by:

Sri Mrinal Jyoti Bora,

(Stenographer Grade-I)