Lakshi Kanta Laskar vs The State Of Assam
2022 Latest Caselaw 4492 Gua

                                                                             Page No.# 1/10

GAHC010085162019




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

                               Case No. : CRL.A(J)/23/2019

            LAKSHI KANTA LASKAR
            S/O. LT. BALIRAM LASKAR, VILL. LANGHIN PAMGAON, P.S. DOKMOKA,
            DIST. KARBI ANGLONG.


            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REP. BY PP, ASSAM.



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A AHMED, AMICUS CURIAE

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

Judgment and Order (Oral)

Date : 16-11-2022 (Suman Shyam, J)

Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant. We have

also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State.

Page No.# 2/10

2. This appeal from jail is presented against the judgment dated 28-11-2018 passed

by the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong at Diphu, in Sessions Case No. 132/2015

whereby, the sole appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for committing the

murder of Madan Saikia by beheading with a dao and sentenced him to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, to suffer simple

imprisonment for another 06 months.

3. The facts and circumstances of the case leading to filing of this appeal is to the

effect that on 07-03-2015, at around 09:30 a.m. when the victim Madan Saikia went

towards the State Bank of India, Howraghat so as to collect his pension, the accused

Lakshi Kanta Laskar hacked him with a sharp 'dao' thereby beheading the deceased

leading to his instant death. On 07-03-2015, the wife of the deceased, viz. Smti. Minu

Saikia lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge of Dokmoka Police Station reporting

the incident. On receipt of the ejahar, DKA P.S. Case No. 18/2015 was registered under

Section 302 IPC and the matter was entrusted to Sub-Inspector Girish Ch. Bora to carry

out investigation. On completion of investigation, the police had submitted charge-sheet,

based on which the learned trial court had framed charge against the accused person

under Section 302 IPC. The charge so framed was read over and explained to the

accused, to which, he had pleaded guilty. Notwithstanding the same, the appellant was

made to face trial.

4. The prosecution case is based on the testimony of one eye witness, viz. Sri Atul

Ch. Nath (PW-6) who had seen the occurrence as well the other witnesses who had either

seen the accused moving around with the severed head of the deceased or had heard Page No.# 3/10

about the incident from reliable sources.

5. The prosecution had examined the wife of the victim Minu Saikia as PW-1. In her

deposition before the Court, PW-1 had stated that her husband was a retired employee of

the Electricity Department and on 07-03-2015, at about 09:00 a.m. he had gone to

Howraghat by riding a bicycle for some work. After about half an hour, some boys from

the Langhin Tinali came to their house and told her that her husband has been cut. On

receipt of the said information, she went to the place of occurrence and saw that the

body of her husband was lying on the main road. When she moved the body, she saw

that her husband was lying on the road without the head and a 'gamusa' (towel) was

lying near the dead body. On seeing the same she became senseless. Later on, the

nearby people had brought her back home and then she regained her senses. The PW-1

has also stated that some people had also brought the accused Lakshi Kanta Laskar along

with the head of her husband and a 'dao' in his hand. Based on the ejahar, Police had

registered Dokmoka P.S. Case. The PW-1 has identified the accused person in the dock by

stating that he was the assailant. In the cross-examination the evidence adduced by PW-1

could not be shaken.

6. PW-2 Sri Sankar Das was a resident of Langhin Pamgaon, i.e. the village to which,

both the accused and the victim belonged to. He is a shopkeeper by profession. He is also

the VDP Secretary of Langhin Bazar. PW-2 has stated that on 09-03-2015, when he was

present in his shop he came to know that a murder has been committed. Then he left the

shop and rushed to a safe place. A VDP Member had informed the actual fact by stating

that the accused Lakshi Kanta Laskar was coming through the market by holding a Page No.# 4/10

severed human head in his hand. Then he rushed to the L.P. School near the Langhin

Market situated beside the Highway and saw that the accused Lakshi Kanta Laskar was

holding a "Naga Dao" and head of someone in his two hands. This witness has also stated

that the dead body of deceased Madan Saikia was lying about 200 meters away from the

National Highway No. 36 without the head. He had informed Dokmoka Police about the

matter. The Police arrested the accused and had also seized the "Naga Dao". This witness

has identified his signature Exhibit-2(1) and the seizure list Exhibit-2 as well as the

material Exhibit-1 which was the seized 'dao'. In his cross-examination, PW-2 has deposed

that the accused was not a patient of mental disease.

7. PW-3 Sri Kon Baruah did not see the incident but he has deposed that the people

who had assembled at the place of occurrence told him that the accused person had

killed the deceased by hacking. PW-4 Sri Kamaleswar Basumatary has deposed that he

had seen the accused person walking towards the Langhin Bazar with the severed head of

the deceased and the public had apprehended the accused person. PW-5 Sri Santanu

Basumatary has deposed that on the date of the occurrence, at around 10:00 a.m. he

was informed that one person after cutting another, was moving around in the Langhin

Bazar with a severed head. He then came to Langhin Bazar and found the accused being

confined by the local people in the market and a severed head was lying near the

accused. During the cross-examination, PWs-3, 4 and 5 could not be shaken. From the

testimonies of PWs-3, 4 and 5 it is apparent that on the date of the occurrence, the

accused was seen to be loitering around in the Langhin Bazar with the severed head of

the deceased.

Page No.# 5/10

8. PW-6 Sri Atul Chandra Nath is the sole eye witness in this case. This witness has

deposed that on the date of occurrence, at about 10:00 a.m., while he was coming home

from Langhin Bazar market, he saw the deceased coming towards the bazaar by riding a

bicycle. At that time, the accused suddenly came from behind and hit the deceased on his

back with the flat portion of the 'dao'. Thereafter, the accused again hit the deceased with

the sharp portion of the 'dao' on his back, near the head. At that, the accused got down

from the bicycle. The accused again hit him with the 'dao' on his neck, as a result of

which, the victim fell down on the ground after screaming. When the deceased fell on the

ground, the accused had hacked the deceased on the neck and severed the head.

Thereafter, the accused went away with the severed head of the victim. While the

accused was hitting the deceased with the 'dao' near the shop owned by a person from

the "Marwari community", he had raised objection but instead of responding to the same,

the accused had threatened the PW-6 by saying that he would also assault him if he came

forward. During cross-examination of PW-6, the testimony of this witness has remained

un-impeached.

9. PW-7 Sri Girish Chandra Bora was the Investigating Officer (I/O) in this case. The

PW-7 has deposed that on 07-03-2015, while he was posted as the attached officer at

Dokmoka Police Station, a lady named Minu Saikia had lodged an ejahar informing that

accused Lakhi Kanta Laskar had hacked her husband from behind with a sharp 'dao' and

caused his death. Thereafter, taking the severed head of the deceased the accused was

loitering in the Langhin Bazar. The public apprehended the accused and handed him over

to the Police. The PW-7 has confirmed that Dokmoka P.S. Case No. 18/2015 was Page No.# 6/10

registered under Section 302 IPC based on the ejahar lodged by the victim's wife and

thereafter, he had conducted investigation in the police case. This witness has further

deposed that prior to receipt of ejahar, G.D. Entry No. 112 was made on receipt of

information regarding the incident and thereafter, he went to the place of occurrence with

the police personnel and saw that the deceased was lying besides the National Highway

at Langhin Bazar. At that time, the head of the deceased was lying near the body. This

witness has stated that the accused was also found lying in an injured condition besides

the road as the public had apprehended him and beaten him up. As the accused was

injured, he was sent to Dokmoka Hospital. The PW-7 has further stated that he had

recovered the severed head of the deceased, held inquest on the dead body and prepared

inquest report (Exhibit-3). Exhibit- 4 is the inquest report of the severed head. He had

also seized the "Naga Dao" which was lying near the accused person. According to PW-7,

when the accused was interrogated by him he had confessed that he had killed the

deceased. Later on, he had arrested the accused, collected the Postmortem Report of the

deceased and finding sufficient materials, had submitted charge-sheet (Exhibit-6) which

bears his signature. During his cross-examination, the PW-7 has stated that the accused

person had told before the Police that he had killed the victim as the deceased had

expelled him from the 'Khel' (section of society).

10. Dr. Sudip Ranjan De was on duty as the SDM & HO in the Diphu Civil Hospital, on

07-03-2015, on which date, the dead body of the deceased was brought there for

postmortem examination in connection with Dokmoka P.S. GD Entry No. 112 dated 07-03-

2015. The doctor was examined as PW-8. This witness has deposed that on conducting Page No.# 7/10

the postmortem examination it was found that the head was completely cut off from the

upper portion of the neck, separated from the body. The doctor had opined that the death

was due to shock and hemorrhage due to cut injury caused by sharp weapon. PW-8 has

proved the Postmortem Report (Exhibit-7) by identifying his signature therein.

11. After recording the evidence of the prosecution side, the statement of the accused

was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. During his examination, as aforesaid, the accused

had admitted to be true all the incriminating circumstances put to him by the Court and

had also stated that he had nothing to say in the matter. The accused person also did not

lead any evidence in his defense. On completion of trial and after taking note of the

materials available on record, the learned Sessions Judge had convicted the appellant

under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid.

12. Mr. A. Ahmed, learned amicus curiae has argued that although there is sufficient

evidence including the testimony of eye-witness PW-6 pointing towards the guilt of the

appellant, yet, from the testimony of the PW-1 as well as PW-7, it appears that the

appellant/ accused had acted out of vengeance and in a fit of rage, leading to the

occurrence. Therefore, submits Mr. Ahmed, there is scope for conversion of the conviction

and sentence of the accused person in this case to one under Section 304 Part-II of the

IPC.

13. Responding to the above, Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P. Assam has argued that

the charge brought against the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and

there is no mitigating circumstance in this case so as to lessen the punishment awarded

to the accused. Therefore, there is no scope for interfering with the judgment dated 28-

Page No.# 8/10

11-2018 passed by the learned trial court.

14. We have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for both the sides

and have also carefully gone through the materials available on record. As indicated

hereinbefore, the prosecution case is based on the testimony of one eye witness PW-6

who has categorically deposed before the Court by stating the manner in which, the

incident had occurred. According to the eye witness account, it is the accused person who

had attacked the victim from behind, first with the flat portion of the 'dao' by hitting him

in the back and when the victim fell in the ground, the accused had severed his head with

the sharp edge of the 'dao'. The evidence of PW-6 appears to be consistent with the other

materials available on record and we also find it to be free from any contradiction. This

witness has also remained intact during his cross-examination. Therefore, we do not find

any justifiable ground to disbelieve the eye witness account of PW-6. If that be so, it is

firmly established on the basis of evidence of PW-6 that it was none other than the

accused who had attacked the victim and not only beheaded him but later on, even

carried the head of the victim in his hand and was loitering around the market. The

aforesaid facts stand cogently established from the testimony of PWs- 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

15. There is no element of doubt in this case about the fact that the victim had

suffered a homicidal death due to beheading. Having regard to the bulk of evidence

available on record indicating the date, time and place of occurrence as well as the

manner in which the incident took place, we are of the view that the learned court below

has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC for committing the

gruesome act of beheading the victim Madan Saikia with a 'dao' in broad day light.

Page No.# 9/10

16. Insofar as the prayer for conversion of the sentence is concerned, it is no doubt

correct that in her cross-examination, the PW-1, i.e. the wife of the victim had stated that

a day before the occurrence, the accused had a quarrel with her. We also find that the

PW-7 had quoted the accused by saying that he had killed the victim as the accused was

expelled from the 'khel'. Notwithstanding the same, in our opinion, the above evidence

would be insufficient to bring this case within the ambit of any of the exceptions of

Section 300 of the IPC. There is nothing on record to show that there was grave and

sudden provocation leading the accused to react violently against the victim. Rather,

considering the fact that the accused was carrying a sharp weapon with him to the place

of occurrence and in view of the evidence showing that he had struck the victim multiple

times, we find that this is a clear case where there was pre-meditation on the part of the

accused. The accused had also shown no remorse after the incident. Rather, in a diabolic

fashion, the accused was seen to be loitering in the market area by carrying the severed

head of the victim. Situated thus, we do not consider it as an appropriate case for

conversion of conviction and sentence of the appellant, as awarded by the learned court

below, to a lesser punishment.

Consequently, this appeal is held to be devoid of any merit and the same is

accordingly dismissed.

Send back the LCR.

Before parting with the record, we wish to put on record, our appreciation as

regards the valuable services rendered by Mr. A. Ahmed, learned amicus curiae appearing

for the appellant in this case and recommend that he be paid just remuneration, as may Page No.# 10/10

be permissible under the existing circular, by the Registry.

                          JUDGE                                JUDGE

GS




Comparing Assistant