Gauhati High Court
Masuk Uddin Laskar @ Masuk Ahmed Laskar vs The State Of Assam on 22 August, 2025
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/10
GAHC010183502024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.A./327/2024
MASUK UDDIN LASKAR @ MASUK AHMED LASKAR
S/O. LATE AMIR UDDIN LASKAR, VILL.- DURGANAGAR PART-VII, P.S-
UDHARBOND, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM.
For the Appellant : Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, Adv.
For the Respondents: Ms. A. Begum, APP, Assam.
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
Date of hearing : 19/08/2025.
Date of Judgement : 22/08/2025.
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
(Michael Zothankhuma, J)
1. Heard Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms.
Page No.# 2/10
A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, representing the State.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgement dated 01/08/2024
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar, in Sessions case No. 203/2023,
by which, the appellant has been convicted under section 302 IPC and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, simple
imprisonment for 3 months.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that an FIR dated 18/07/2023 was
submitted to the Officer-in-Charge of the Udarbond Police Station by the wife of the
deceased, stating that when her husband was entering her home, the appellant, who
is the brother of the deceased, called the deceased out to the courtyard, where upon,
he kicked him in the scrotum due to which, the appellant fell to the ground.
Thereafter, the appellant took a sharp dagger from his waist and was about to stab
the deceased. However, the informant (PW-1) and her younger brother Zilon
intervened. This led to the appellant pushing them to the ground. The deceased was
then stabbed twice in his chest in front of the informant and Zilon by the appellant.
Thereafter, the appellant fled away. When she took the deceased to the Udarbond
Health Centre, Runu Begum, the sister of the deceased and the appellant hid the truth
and lied to the Doctor that the injury on the deceased was due to an accident. The
doctor then referred the deceased to the Silchar Medical College & Hospital (SMCH).
The incident occurred around 8-30 p.m. and the informant stated that her husband
died at the place of occurrence.
4. In pursuant to the FIR dated 18/07/2023, Udarbond PS case No. 133/2023
under sections 120(B)/302/201/34 IPC was registered. Runu Begum Laskar, the sister
of the deceased was arrested on 18/07/2023. On the other hand, the appellant was
arrested only on 19/07/2023.
5. In pursuance to the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer
(IO) and after the body had been sent for post-mortem examination, the IO filed a
Page No.# 3/10
charge sheet, as he found a prima facie case under sections 120(B)/302/201/34 IPC
against the appellant Masuk Uddin Laskar and co-accused Runu Begum Laskar.
6. Charge was framed by the learned Trial Court against the appellant and
Runu Begum under (i) section 120(B)/34 IPC; (ii) 302/34 IPC and (iii) 201/34 IPC.
Thereafter, 7 (seven) prosecution witnesses were examined by the learned Trial Court.
After examination of the appellant and Runu Begum Laskar was done under section
313 Cr.P.C, the learned trial Court came to a finding that the appellant was guilty of
having committed the offence under section 302 IPC only. The appellant was acquitted
of all the other charges leveled against him under section 120(B)/201 IPC. The co-
accused Runu Begum Laskar was acquitted of all the charges by giving her the benefit
of doubt.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgement
should be set aside, in view of the fact that there are discrepancies and contradictions
in the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses. Secondly, no weapon was
recovered from the appellant. He also submits that the death of the deceased had
occurred due to the deceased having fallen on the iron rods which were protruding
out of the cement pillars, which pierced his body, as the incident had occurred in a
building under construction. He also submits that the FIR shows the GD entry number
of the incident to have been recorded as "003", while the actual GD entry number was
"383", as has been reflected in the evidence of PW-7, who is the IO. Thus, the
mismatch in the number of the GDE implied that there was a mistake and a mix-up
had occurred.
8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, Ms. A. Begum, on the
other hand, submits that the informant (PW-1), who is the wife of the deceased and
sister-in-law of the appellant, along with PW-2, who is the brother-in-law of the
deceased, were the eye witnesses to the incident. Their evidence show that the
deceased had been stabbed a number of times by a dagger used by the appellant,
Page No.# 4/10
who had thereafter fled the scene of the crime. The Additional PP submits that there
was no question of there being an accidental death of the deceased, by falling upon
iron rods, due to the fact that no iron rod was purchased by anybody, as only sand
and bricks had been collected for the construction work, that was yet to be started.
The Addl. PP also submits that the evidence given by the Doctor, who is the PW-4,
clearly shows that the injury sustained upon the appellant was not due to a fall on any
iron rod. The learned APP further submits that as the appellant has given a blanket
denial to the evidence that has been adduced against him, while being examined
under section 313 Cr.PC. an adverse inference can be drawn against the appellant.
She submits that in view of their being eye witnesses, there can be no infirmity with
the conviction of the appellant by the learned trial Court.
9. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
10. The evidence of the wife of the deceased, who is also the informant, clearly
shows that she had seen the appellant kick her husband in the scrotum and then stab
the deceased with a dagger on various parts of his body. Thereafter, the appellant fled
away from the place of occurrence. In her evidence, PW-1 stated that there were no
iron rods, as the construction of the staircase had not started. The evidence of PW-2,
who is the brother-in-law of the deceased, is also similar to the evidence given by PW-
1. In his cross-examination, PW-2 had stated that there were two rooms and one
kitchen in the house of the PW-1. The construction work had not started and no iron
rods had been purchased. Only sand and bricks had been collected.
11. The evidence of PW-3 is to the effect that he was informed by one Sajan
Uddin Laskar that his cousin brother had died. On reaching the house of the
deceased, he found the deceased lying on the bed and Sajan Uddin Laskar informed
him that the deceased had died by falling on the rods which were protruding from a
pillar. Thereafter, the Police arrived and sent the body to the SMCH for Post-mortem
Page No.# 5/10
examination.
Though, PW-3 has stated that he had heard from Sajan Uddin laskar that the
deceased died due to injuries suffered by the deceased, from the rods that were
protruding from a pillar, Sajan Uddin Laskar was not made a witness and neither was
he examined by the learned Trial Court. As such, the evidence of PW-3 with regard to
the manner in which the deceased had died, is only hearsay evidence, which has not
been substantiated or corroborated.
12. The evidence of PW-4, who is the Doctor who had conducted the Post-
mortem examination on the deceased, shows that there were injuries all over the
body of the deceased and in his opinion, death was due to hemorrhagic shock as a
result of the injuries sustained by the deceased. All the injuries were anti-mortem and
caused by blunt force impact. In his cross examination, PW-4 stated that the
penetrating injuries on the deceased may be caused by falling upon iron rod, but the
same was not possible by a single fall. The penetrating injuries may be caused by a
single fall only if the person falls on a number of iron rods at the same time.
13. The injuries sustained by the deceased, as per the deposition of PW-4, is as
follows :-
"Injuries :-
(i) Penetrating wound of size 2 cm x 1 cm with irregular and contused
margin is present over the left side of anterior chest wall 9 cm below the
left nipple and 5.5 cm away from midline, thoracic cavity depth.
(ii) Scratch abrasion with reddish scab formation of size 10 cm X 0.2 cm is
present over the left side of anterior chest wall continuing with injury
No.1
Page No.# 6/10
(iii) Penetrating wound of size 2 cm X 1 cm with irregular and contused
margin is present over the left side of anterior chest wall 2 cm below the
left nipple and 16 cm away from midline, thoracic cavity depth.
(iv) Scratch abrasion with reddish scab formation of size 3.5 cm X 0.2 cm is
present over the left side of anterior chest wall continuing with injury No
(v) Penetrating wound of size 2 cm x 1 cm with irregular and contused
margin is present over the left armpit, 19 cm away from midline, thoracic
cavity depth.
(vi) Scratch abrasion with reddish scab formation of size 1 cm X 0.5 cm is
present over the right side of neck, 12 cm below the right mastoid
process and 4 cm away from midline.
(vii) Scratch abrasion with reddish scab formation of size 5 cm X 0.2 cm is
present over the dorsal aspect of left arm.
(viii) Scratch abrasion with reddish scab formation of size 1 cm X 0.5 em is
present over the left side of neck, 12 cm below the left mastoid process
and 6 cm away from midline.
(ix) Scratch abrasion with reddish scab formation of size 1.5 cm X 0.2 cm is
present over the left side of neck, 14 cm below the left mastoid process
and 4.5 cm away from midline.
Page No.# 7/10
(x) Scratch abrasion with reddish scab formation of size 1 cm x 0.5 cm is
present over the right side of neck, 14 cm below the right mastoid
process and 2 cm away from midline.
(xi) Bruise of size 2 cm x 1 cm is present over the right side of neck, 11 cm
below the right mastoid process and 8 cm away from midline, bluish in
colour."
14. The evidence of PW-6, who is the father-in-law of the deceased, is to the
effect that he heard that his son-in-law had been murdered by his brother, the
appellant and that the injuries had been inflicted with some iron object. Further, the
co-accused Runu Begum, the sister of the appellant and the deceased, had told others
that the deceased had suffered a stroke and died. PW-6, however, stated that he did
not tell the Police what Runu Begum had said.
15. The evidence of PW-7, who is the IO is to the effect that while being posted
at Udarbond Police Station as Officer-in-Charge on 18/07/2023, he received
information at about 6-30 a.m from a person of the said locality, stating that due to a
dispute which took place between the two brothers the night before, one brother was
killed, who was brought to the Udarbond BPHC. Inspite of the body being taken to the
SMCH, it was taken back to the house, to secretly bury the body. On receipt of the
information, he made a GD entry vide No. 383 dated 18/07/2023 and immediately
proceeded to the place of occurrence. He recovered the dead body first and then
prepared the sketch map of the Place of Occurrence (PO). The inquest over the dead
body was done and thereafter, it was sent to the SMCH for Post-mortem examination.
He also stated that the weapon could not be recovered, though he seized the
bloodstained vest worn by the deceased. The wife of the deceased lodged an FIR and
Page No.# 8/10
he apprehended the co-accused Runu Begum Laskar. On 19/07/2023, he apprehended
the appellant. The I.O. also stated that on 18/07/2023 at about 6-30 a.m., the
informer hurriedly informed him of the matter and left, due to which he could not
record the name and address of the informer. Thus, the informer could not be made a
witness, as he could not be traced. He also stated that PW-6 did not tell him that
Runu Begum had told others that the deceased had suffered a stroke and died. We
have also noticed that no suggestion was put to the IO (PW-7) during cross-
examination that PW-1 and PW-2 were not eye witnesses to the crime.
16. The evidence given by the IO (PW-7) clearly shows that the GD entry
number was 383. However, in the FIR, the reference number of the General Diary has
been recorded as "003". This difference in the number 383 and 003 has apparently not
been understood by the appellant's counsel, inasmuch as, the GDE Number is 383, as
has been shown in the records. The Reference Number of the GDE as 003 does not
mean that the GDE Number is 003. The GDE Entry Number 383 is completely different
from the Reference Number 003 and it does not mean that the GDE has two different
numbers.
17. A perusal of the examination of the appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C.
shows that he has given a blanket denial to the recorded evidence, with regard to his
involvement in the killing of the deceased.
18. In the case of Phula Singh Vs. State of H.P. [(2014) 4 SCC 9] , the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when an accused remains in complete denial of
the evidence adduced in the trial, during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
an adverse inference as permissible in law, can be drawn against the accused.
19. In the case of Kartik Malhar vs. State of Bihar, reported in (1996) 1
SCC 614, the Supreme Court has held that a conviction can be made on the basis of
the statement of a single eye-witness, provided that the evidence of that witness is
reliable, unshaken and consistent with the case of the prosecution.
Page No.# 9/10
In the case of Dalbir Kaur (Mst) vs. State of Punjab, reported in (1976) 4
SCC 158, the Supreme Court has held as follows:-
"Moreover, a close relative, who is very natural witness, cannot be
regarded as an interested witness. The term 'interested postulates that
the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing that the
accused person is somehow or the other convicted either because he had
some animus with the accused or for some other reason. Such is not the
case here."
In the present case, not only do we find the evidence of PW Nos. 1 & 2 to be
reliable and unshaken, we do not find that the witnesses have any direct interest in
seeing the appellant to be convicted somehow or the other. No reason has been
forthcoming as to why PW Nos. 1 & 2 would want to give false evidence against the
appellant.
20. In the present case, besides there being two eye witnesses to the crime, the
multiple wounds on the body of the deceased goes to show that the injuries were not
due to the deceased falling on iron rods, but due to being stabbed. Further, the
Doctor's cross-examination shows that penetrating injuries on the body of the
deceased could not have been caused by a single fall on the iron rods, but only by
more than one fall on the iron rods. Keeping the above in view, it is unlikely that a
person, who has suffered penetrating injuries on his body due to a fall on iron rods,
would have extricated himself and again fallen on the same iron rods. The attempt
made by the appellant to explain that death was caused due to an accidental fall on
iron rods is not only far-fetched, but is belied by the evidence of the two eye
witnesses, whose testimony has not been shaken during the trial.
21. On considering the above facts, we do not find any ground to come to a
Page No.# 10/10
finding that there has been an accidental death of the deceased due to him allegedly
falling on the iron rods. Interestingly, it would also be pertinent to note the fact that
the appellant had fled and gone missing for two days after the crime was committed
and could be arrested only on 19.07.2003, while the incident had occurred on
17.07.2003. The same lends credence to the prosecution case that the appellant was
aware that he had committed a crime and hence, had fled. All the above facts, in our
view, point to the guilt and involvement of the appellant in committing the act of
murder against his deceased brother. We accordingly do not find any ground to
interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed.
22. Send back the TCR.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
