Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010190182020 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRL.A(J)/91/2020 PINKU TANTI SIVASAGAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. M BARMAN, AMICUS CURIAE, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 31.08.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J) 1. Heard Ms. M. Barman, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 22.01.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Charaideo, Sonari, in Sessions (CHA) Case No.51/2018, by which the appellant has been convicted Page No.# 2/6 under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, with a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for 2 months. 3. The brief facts of the case is that an FIR dated 11.01.2018 was submitted by Prosecution Witness (PW) No.1 to the Officer-in-Charge of the Sonari Police Station stating that on 04.01.2018, his sister-in-law Smti Rajani Tanti along with her two children visited his place. However, on 11.01.2018 at around 4 a.m, the appellant who was the husband of Rajani Tanti, entered their house by breaking the door and killed his sister-in-law Smti Rajani Tanti with a sharp ‘kolom kotari’ (pruning knife). The appellant then fled after committing the crime. However, the locals apprehended and assaulted the appellant, as a result of which the appellant sustained injuries. 4. Pursuant to the FIR filed by PW-1, Sonari Police Case No. 08/2018 under Section 302 IPC was registered on 11.01.2018. After the investigation had been completed by the Investigating Officer (PW-9), he submitted a charge sheet, on having found a prima facie case under Section 302 IPC established against the appellant. 5. The learned Trial Court thereafter examined 9 Prosecution Witnesses and after examining the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the learned Trial Court found that the Prosecution had been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt under Section 302 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC. Page No.# 3/6 6. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that there does not appear to be any infirmity with the findings of the learned Trial Court, inasmuch as, there were two eyewitnesses who saw the appellant inflicting injuries on his wife, i.e. PW-1 and PW-2. The doctor's evidence also proved that the injury caused to the deceased was the reason for her cause of death. The alleged weapon had also been seized by the Police and the seizure list, by which the weapon was seized had been made in the presence of the seizure witnesses, i.e. PW-3 & PW-4. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence of the Prosecution having clearly established that it was only the appellant who had killed his wife in the presence of two eyewitnesses, the appeal should be dismissed. 8. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 9 PW-1 and the appellant had both married sisters. One of the sisters was Rajani Tanti, who was killed by her husband (the appellant). PW-2 is the wife of PW-1 and the sister of the deceased. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is to the effect that they had heard the appellant cutting the door of their house one morning and when the door was opened by PW-1, the appellant tried to initially cut PW-1, who hid himself under the bed. Then the appellant sliced his wife (deceased) and also dragged her out, due to which the deceased died on the spot. On fleeing from the place of occurrence, the local villagers caught the appellant. The evidence of PW-2, who is the sister of the deceased, is also to the same effect. Page No.# 4/6 10. The evidence of PW-3, who was a member of the Village Defence Party (VDP) is to the effect that the villagers had caught the appellant and that he had seen the injuries on the body of the deceased. His evidence is also to the effect that he was a seizure witness in respect of the seizure list made by the Police. 11. The evidence of PW-4, is to the effect that he knew the informant and the appellant, besides knowing the deceased. PW-4 stated that he saw the appellant fleeing from the place of occurrence with a dao. He also stated that the deceased had been hacked on her head and hands. Police seized the dao and he was a seizure witness to the seizure of the dao. He also clarified that the dao that he had seen was a ‘kolom kotari’. 12. The evidence of PW-5, who is the doctor, is to the effect that he was posted at Sivasagar Civil Hospital on 11-01-2018, whereupon he conducted post-mortem examination on the deceased. His findings as per his testimony is as follows: “I found rigor mortis present, injury found on head, neck and abdomen. I) Deep cut on neck with separation of occipital bone, left sided 4 in numbers. II) Deep cut mark over left side of frontal bone about 5" length with under lying bone. III) Deep cut mark on left lateral aspect of neck 1" deep 3 inch in length. IV) Cut mark on left hand extended from root of index finger to middle finger, ½” x 6" in size. V) Complete separation of right middle and little fingers. VI) Penetrating injury 2" depth over right medio lateral aspect Page No.# 5/6 of abdomen. In my opinion the cause of death is due to severe haemorrhage and shock as a result of injuries mentioned.” In the opinion of PW-5, the cause of death was due to severe haemorrhage and shock as a result of the injuries sustained. 13. The evidence of PW-6 is to the effect that on the day of occurrence, he saw several persons in the house of the informant and the dead body of the wife of the appellant. He also saw the appellant tied up in the courtyard and people were saying that the appellant had committed the murder. 14. The evidence of PW-7 is to the effect that he heard that a murder had taken place. 15. The evidence of PW-8 is to the effect that PW-2 had told him about the murder. 16. The evidence of PW-9, who is the Investigating Officer, is to the effect that he had investigated the case and submitted the charge sheet. He had also seized the weapon at the place of occurrence. 17. The examination of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C shows that he has given a blanket denial to all the incriminating evidence that had been adduced against him. 18. As can be seen from the evidence adduced by the learned Trial Court, Page No.# 6/6 there were two eyewitnesses to the crime. There is nothing in the evidence showing that there was any enmity between PW-1 and PW-2 against the appellant. No reason is forthcoming as to why PW-1 and PW-2 would fabricate a false case against the appellant. Not only was the weapon used in the crime seized by the Police, the evidence of the doctor clearly shows that the injuries on the deceased, could only have been caused by a sharp edged weapon. The blanket denial of the incriminating evidence that had been adduced before the learned Trial Court by the appellant, gives rise to an inference that it was only the appellant that had committed the gruesome act of murder of his wife. 19. On considering all the above facts, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court. 20. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 21. Send back to the TCR. 22. In appreciation of the assistance provided by the learned Amicus Curiae, her fees should be paid by the Gauhati High Court Legal Services Committee. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant