Sri Dharani Dhar Das vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 370 Gua

                                                                                         Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010024472015




                               THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                  Case No. : Crl.A./269/2015

             SRI DHARANI DHAR DAS
             S/O LATE SANARAM DAS, R/O TOPOBAN, P.S. DOOM DOOMA, DIST.
             TINSUKIA, ASSAM.

             VERSUS

             THE STATE OF ASSAM and ANR

             2:RAJEN DEKA
              S/O LATE LANKESWAR DEKA
              R/O TULSIBARI
              P.S. RANGIA
              DIST. KAMRUP
             ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner    : MR.R ALI

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. B.B. GOGOI, ADDL. P.P.

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Date : 04-02-2021

Heard Mr. N.J. Das, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the respondents.

Page No.# 2/3

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.05.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kamrup, Rangia in Sessions Case No. 375/2007. By the said judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default simple imprisonment for 6 months.

3. As per prosecution case, the appellant caused death of his wife by inflicting multiple injuries in course of quarrel between them and after commission of the offence, the appellant himself appeared in the police station. Later on, the formal FIR was lodged by PW-1, on the basis of which, police registered Rangia P.S. Case No. 300/2002 under Section 302 IPC and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant and eventually he stood trial before the learned Sessions Judge.

4. In course of trial, learned Special Judge framed charges against the appellant under Section 302 IPC, which was abjured by the appellant. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 CrPC after completion of the prosecution evidence, wherein the appellant took the plea of innocence and also retracted his confession. On appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted the appellant and awarded sentence as indicated above.

5. On assessment of the evidence, it appears that conviction was primarily based on the confessional statement of the accused appellant and some other circumstantial evidences lending support to the confession.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has not seriously contested the finding of the learned Sessions Judge, whereby the appellant was held guilty under Section 304 Part-I IPC. However, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant has already undergone almost the entire period of sentence and he is on the verge of completing the substantive sentence of imprisonment. Therefore, learned counsel submits that having regard to the young age of the appellant and the facts and circumstances under which the appellant caused death of his wife, some leniency should be shown to him with regard to quantum of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Page No.# 3/3

Court, to which, learned Addl. P.P. has also no objection.

7. From the record it appears that the appellant has undergone 6 years of his sentence from the initiation of the case. Therefore, having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the facts and circumstances under which the offence was committed by the accused appellant, this court is of the view that the appellant deserves little compassion and leniency in respect of the sentence. Being of the above view, the substantial sentence of imprisonment is modified to the period which the appellant has already undergone. It is also provided that the default sentence of simple imprisonment for non-payment of fine is also reduced from six months to one month.

8. The appeal is partly allowed. In the event of payment of fine amount or after completion of the default sentence of one month, the appellant shall be released, if not wanted in any other case.

9. Send down the LCR.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant