Gauhati High Court
Ujjal Konwar vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 25 January, 2023
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010156872022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/486/2022
UJJAL KONWAR
S/O LATE INDRESWAR KONWAR, R/O LAIPULI MORANKARI GAON, P.O.-
KADAMONI VIA SRIPURIA, P.S.- BORDUBI, DIST.- TINSUKIA, PIN- 786145,
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REP. BY THE LEARNED P.P., ASSAM.
2:INFORMANT PROSECUTRIX X
REP. BY THE HUSBAND OF THE DECEASED PERSON. SRI PRANAB
CHANGMAI
S/O SRI KAMALESWAR CHANGMAI
R/O I.O.C. COLONY
TINSUKIA
P.O. AND P.S.- TINSUKIA
DIST.- TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN- 786125
Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. B N GOGOI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
Linked Case : Crl.A./208/2022
UJJAL KONWAR
Page No.# 2/6
S/O LATE INDRESWAR KONWAR
R/O LAIPULI MORANKARI GAON
P.O.- KADAMONI VIA SRIPURIA
P.S.- BORDUBI
DIST.- TINSUKIA
PIN- 786145
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REP. BY THE LEARNED P.P.
ASSAM.
2:INFORMANT PROSECUTRIX X
REP. BY THE HUSBAND OF THE DECEASED PERSON.
SRI PRANAB CHANGMAI
S/O SRI KAMALESWAR CHANGMAI
R/O I.O.C. COLONY
TINSUKIA
P.O. AND P.S.- TINSUKIA
DIST.- TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN- 786125.
------------
Advocate for : DR. B N GOGOI
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
ORDER (ORAL)
25.01.2023
(Ajit Borthakur, J)
Heard Mr. B.N. Gogoi, learned counsel for the accused applicant/appellant
Page No.# 3/6
as well as Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State
respondent No. 1.
2. By this interlocutory application under Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C., the accused
appellant, who is convicted vide the impugned Judgment and Order, dated
22.06.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia in Sessions Case
No. 59(T)/2015 in G.R. Case No. 127/2013 arising out of Tinsukia P.S. Case No.
52/2013 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand), in default, to undergo S.I. for 6(six) months u/s 302 of the IPC,
has prayed for suspension of sentence and release on bail.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.01.2013, one Pranab
Changmai lodged an F.I.R. before Tinsukia P.S., alleging, inter-alia, that on that
day, he was informed over telephone that his wife, Renu Gogoi Changmai was
murdered by some miscreant. On inquiry, the complainant came to know that
the present accused appellant killed his wife with a dao.
4. Mr. B.N. Gogoi, learned counsel for the accused applicant, submits that the
accused has been languishing in jail for erroneous appreciation of the evidence
laid by the prosecution in the case inasmuch as the inherent vital contradictions
in the evidence of the 11 prosecution witnesses were ignored and even most
material witnesses such as the informant, who happened to be the husband of
the deceased and the wife of the accused appellant have been kept out of the
witness box, without any explanation by the prosecution side. Mr. Gogoi further
submits that P.W.1, the doctor in his post-mortem report, vide Exhibit-1,
although recorded the multiple injuries sustained by the deceased on vital parts
of the body, has failed to record the age of the aforesaid injuries and none of
the prosecution witnesses has specifically identified the accused appellant as the
person who, in fact, delivered the fatal blows by sharp cutting weapon on the
Page No.# 4/6
deceased. Mr. Gogoi has drawn attention to the various technical lapses
committed by the investigating officer during investigation into the case. As
such, Mr. Gogoi submits that subject to any condition, the accused appellant
being innocent for the aforestated reasons, be directed to be released on bail
and the sentence passed against him be suspended till disposal of the
connected appeal.
5. Per contra, referring to the grounds cited in the written objection, Ms. S.
Jahan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, submits that the evidence of P.W. 7
shows that in the relevant evening, she found the wife of the applicant at the
deceased's house and when the wife of the accused appellant/applicant went to
make tea, the applicant reached the place and went straight to the kitchen and
quarrelled with his wife, Palakshi and then, he came out. The statements of P.W.
7 and the wife of the applicant, Palakshi were recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. vide the
exhibits and they clearly implicated the accused applicant. Ms. Jahan further
submits that the weapon of offence was seized by the investigating officer and
the autopsy surgeon, P.W. 1, has given clear finding regarding the cause of
death of the deceased as due to multiple injuries received on her head, neck
and on other parts of the body indicating thereby the use of the aforesaid
seized sharp cutting weapon (machete). Therefore, Ms. Jahan submits that the
applicant has failed to show any exceptional circumstances requiring suspension
of the sentence passed by the learned trial Court against him and accordingly,
making him entitled to be released on bail. Ms. Jahan submits that as the
matter is ready for final hearing, the same may be directed to be listed
accordingly,
6. We have considered the above submissions made by the learned counsel
for both sides and perused records including the reasons for the decision
Page No.# 5/6
recorded in the impugned judgment and order.
7. Perusal of the post-mortem report of the deceased Renu Gogoi Changmai,
dated 29.01.2013 vide Exhibit- 1 shows that the cause of her death was due to
shock and haemorrhage as a result of head, neck and bodily injuries sustained.
All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature, consistent with heavy sharp object
and were homicidal in nature.
8. Perusal of the evidence of P.W. 10, the investigating officer along with the
inquest report prepared by one Pranab Jyoti Kakoti, Executive Magistrate, shows
that the dead body of the victim was found inside an IOCL quarter at Sripuria,
Tinsukia belonged to the deceased and her dead body bore multiple cut injuries
on the vital parts. Although the prosecution failed to examine the husband of
the deceased/the informant and the wife of the accused applicant, apart from
other evidence including the evidence of P.W. 7, suggests that the accused
applicant and his wife Palakshi Konwar were present at the house of the
deceased and they both initially got involved in an argument at her (deceased)
house and then, the accused applicant got involved in an argument with the
deceased alleging that she (deceased) was inciting his wife (Palakshi) in some
matters. The evidence further reveals that later on, Palakshi on her second visit
to her house on call of the deceased, came out of the quarter of the deceased
shouting that 'someone had caused cut injuries to someone'.
9. Therefore, without going deep into the merit of the evidence available on
the case record and hearing the learned counsel for both the sides, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the sentence passed by the learned trial Court in
the above noted case cannot be suspended and he cannot safely be directed to
be released on bail till disposal of the appeal.
Page No.# 6/6
10. Accordingly, the interlocutory application filed by the accused
applicant/appellant stands rejected.
This disposes of the interlocutory application.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
