Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010265702013 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.A./183/2013 SUMIT SINGHA @ SUMIT SINGHA PURKAYASTHA S/O AJOY SINGHA, R/O VILL. RONGPUR PT. IV, P.O. RONGPUR, P.S KATLICHERRA, DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM. VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY LID PUBLIC PROSECUTION STATE OF ASSAM GAUHATI HIGH COURT. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.M K MAJUMDAR, MR.A K PURKAYASTHA,MR.S DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 16-09-2025 Heard Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the Appellant, along with Mr. M.K. Mazumder, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State/ respondent. 2. The challenge in the present appeal is to the Judgment dated 29-04-2014, passed Page No.# 2/9 by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Sessions Case No. 39/2010, convicting the Appellant, herein, under Section 323 IPC and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year along with payment of fine of Rs. 1000/- (One Thousand), in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of 03 (three) months. 4. The prosecution case in brief is that, one Parul Singha lodged an FIR dated 06-06- 2010, inter-alia, alleging therein that on 02-06-2010 at around 07:00 am, her husband Ajit Singha who was ploughing in his paddy field, adjacent to their homestead and in front of nearby pond was assaulted by the Appellant, herein, who was the nephew of the husband of the Informant. It was further alleged by the Informant that there was an altercation between her husband and the Appellant, herein, with regard to the release of blocked water of the field and the Appellant, herein, had struck her husband repeatedly with a spade, which resulted in her husband falling down in the field. It was further alleged in the FIR, that 03 (three) other accused persons had also rushed to the place armed with weapons, like dao, lathi etc. However, hearing the hue & cry, the family members of the Informant and neighbouring people came to the spot and rescued the husband of the Informant from the clutches of the accused persons. It was also stated in the FIR that initially her husband was taken to Katlicherra Hospital but the Doctors on finding his condition to be critical had referred him to the Silchar Medical College & Hospital, Silchar for treatment. The said FIR was registered and on the date of the registration of the FIR, the husband of the petitioner succumbed to his injuries. Although, initially the case was registered under Section 326/34 IPC against 04 (four) accused persons, including the Page No.# 3/9 Appellant, herein, however, subsequently, on the death of the husband of the Informant, Section 302 IPC was added, in terms of the permission granted by the court. On conclusion of the investigation, the police laid charge-sheet against the Appellant, herein, under Section 302 IPC. The case now been triable by the Sessions Court, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions, Hailakandi by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi. The trial court on appearance of the accused before it, framed charges under Section 302 IPC and the same was read over and explained to the Appellant, herein. The Appellant, however, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, a trial ensued. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 10 (ten) witnesses. The accused was, thereafter, examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence evidence was adduced by the Appellant, herein. On conclusion of the trial, the trial court upon appreciating the evidence coming on record vide judgment dated 29-04-2003, proceeded to acquit the Appellant, herein, from the charge framed against him under Section 302 IPC. The evidences coming on record, having demonstrated the offence under Section 323 IPC to have been established against the Appellant, herein, the Appellant came to be convicted under Section 323 IPC. On such conviction, the Appellant was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- (One Thousand) only, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for further period of 03 (three) months. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has instituted the present appeal. Page No.# 4/9 5. Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the Appellant by taking this Court through the evidences of the prosecution witness has submitted that the evidences coming on record does not conclusively establish the fact that the Appellant, herein, had assaulted the husband of the Informant. He further submits that the prosecution witnesses were relatives and accordingly, their evidence cannot be taken on its face value. He submits that the evidences if perused in proper perspective would reveal that no material was brought on record, thereon, to convict the Appellant, herein, even under the provision of Section 323 IPC. 6. Mr. Purkayastha by referring to the evidences adduced by the PW-8 Dr. B.C. Roy Medhi who had carried out post-mortem in respect of the deceased husband of the Informant submits that the deposition of the PW-8 would bring to the forefront that the death of the deceased was on account of natural factors and the blow even if attributed to have been made by the Appellant, herein, the same was not the cause, attributable to the death of the deceased. He further submits that Post Mortem Report would bring to the forefront that the projection made by the prosecution witnesses of the Appellant, herein, assaulting the deceased to be not believable. In the above premises, he submits that this Court would be pleased to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal of the Appellant from the charge under which he was so convicted by the learned trial court. 7. Per contra, Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P. Assam submits that although the PW-8 had opined the cause of death of the deceased to be on account of natural factors, the direct evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, more particularly, PW-1 and Page No.# 5/9 PW-5 would bring to the forefront the assault made upon the deceased by the Appellant, herein, and accordingly, the conviction of the Appellant under Section 323 IPC by the learned trial court would not mandate any interference by this Court. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 9. On consideration of the judgment dated 29-04-2023, this Court finds that the learned trial court on appreciation of the evidence coming on record, including the evidence adduced by PW-8 (Dr. B.C. Roy Medhi) found that the charge framed against the Appellant under Section 302 IPC was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, on finding that the Appellant, herein, has assaulted the deceased by way of a spade, offence punishable under Section 323 IPC having been established, the learned trial court proceeded to convict the Appellant, herein, under Section 323 IPC. The conclusion drawn by the learned trial court in the matter, being relevant, is extracted, here-in-below: “22. Now, it is to be seen whether the death of the deceased was culpable homicide and if so, whether it amounts to murder? To decide to this vital question, the evidence of PW. 8, Dr. B.C. Roy Medhi, Professor and HOD., Forensic Medicine of SMCH., Silchar is significant. According to PW. 8, who conducted autopsy, deposed that he did not find any external injury on the dead body. However, on dissection of the scalp, he found foccal cosntusion present in the posterior part of the left parietal and left oscipital region, skull healthy, brain conjested. The Doctor opined that the cause of death was syncope as a result of acute exacerbation of chronic coronary insufficiency of the heart and he further stated that the cause of death was natural. The injury found in the scalp is ante-mortem and caused by blunt impact. The Doctor did not attribute the said injury to the cause of death the patient. He has emphatically stated that the cause of death is natural. The evidence of the Doctor has made the prosecution case of causing homicidal death of the deceased topsy turvy, stating that the cause of death is natural. As such, although the eye witnesses deposed that the accused inflicted spade blow on the Page No.# 6/9 back side of the neck of the deceased, the said blow cannot be attributed to cause the death of the deceased. PW. 10, Mrs. J.R. Lalsim, Executive Magistrate, Cachar, who held inquest on the deadbody of the deceased did not find any external mark. Ext. 7 is the inquest report, wherein Ext. 7(1) is her signature. That being so, it can safely be held that the death of the deceased was not of culpable homicidal. Hence, the question of committing murder by intentionally causing the death of the deceased by inflicting spade blow does not arise at all. However, from the impeccable evidence of the key witnesses, it is found that the accused inflicted a spade blow on the back of the neck of the deceased and according to PW.1, the accused assaulted her husband with the back side of the spade. The doctor also found on dissection one foccal contusion present in the posterior part of left parietal and occipital region; which was ante-mortem in nature and caused by blunt impact. The evidence of the key witnesses received support from the medical evidence that the accused gave spade blow with its blunt side on the neck of the deceased. The medical evidence is silent regarding the nature of the injury. As such, the said injury cannot be treated as grievous as defined under Sec. 320 of the IPC. Therefore, logically, it can be concluded that accused voluntarily caused hurt to Ajit Sing by inflicting blow as stated by the witnesses. 23. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is found and held that the accused committed an offence punishable under Sec. 323, IPC., instead of Sec. 302 of the IPC. Hence, the accused is convicted under the said section of law.” 10. Having drawn the above conclusion, the learned trial court proceeded to sentence the Appellant, herein, in the following manner; “24. Heard the accused on the point of proposed sentence under Sec. 235(2) of the CrPC. The accused pleaded for leniency stating that at the time of incident, he was aged 20 years old and he got enraged when his paternal uncle released the blocked water towards his field and could not resist himself. Now, he is repentant for his misdeeds. The accused assaulted his own paternal uncle (elder brother of his father) over a petty matter that too with a spade on the back side of the neck. Although the deceased did not expire from the impact of the injury as opined by the Doctor, the fact remains that he voluntarily caused hurt to the deceased. As such, I have declined to extend the benefit of Sec. 360 of CrPC, or Sec. 3/4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and accordingly the accused is sentenced to suffer RI. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, id., to undergo RI, for a period of 3 months. The period of detention of the accused, if Page No.# 7/9 any, shall be set off against the sentence of imprisonment under Sec. 428, CrPC.” 11. This Court, on examination of the conclusions drawn by the learned trial court, finds that the same were so drawn on a due and proper appreciation of the evidences coming on record. The conclusion drawn by the learned trial court, that the charge against the Appellant, herein, under Section 302 IPC to be not established, being based on the evidence coming on record, would not call for any interference. However, in view of the evidence adduced in the matter by the eye witness and the said evidence being direct, although not contributing to the death of the deceased, this Court finds that the evidences relied upon by the learned trial court for convicting the Appellant, herein, under Section 323 IPC, suffers from no infirmity, accordingly, the conviction of the Appellant under Section 323 is required to be maintained. 12. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court finds that the learned trial court, had declined to extend the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to the Appellant, herein, by only noticing the act attributed to him in the matter. The act attributed to the Appellant, herein, also being established to be not the cause of death of the deceased, this Court finds that the learned trial court for the purpose of denying to the Appellant, herein, to the benefits of the Act of 1958, had not recorded any special reason. It is a settled position of law that a court may not grant benefit of the Act of 1958 in a given facts of a particular case, however, due and proper consideration with regard to the same is to be given. 13. This Court considering the facts noticed above and also considering the settled Page No.# 8/9 position of law in the matter [refer decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sitaram Paswan Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 110], and also considering the fact that the incident had occasioned on 02-06-2010 and more than, 15 years have lapsed from the date of the incident and the incident being a result of an altercation taking place in the matter without any premeditation on the part of the Appellant, herein, this Court is of the considered view that the Appellant, herein, is entitled to be extended the benefit under the provision of the Act of 1958. The said benefit being also permissible to be granted by this Court while considering the present appeal, this Court extends the benefit of the Act of 1958 to the Appellant, herein. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the Appellant, herein, is given the benefit under the Act of 1958 and the sentence is modified to the effect that instead of sending the Appellant to the jail, he be given the benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958. 14. This Court, however, does not interfere with the payment of the fine, as directed, by the learned trial court and the same is maintained along with the prescription that in default of fine, the Appellant, herein, would be required to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 (three) months. 15. As such, it is directed that the Appellant, herein, will file 02 (two) sureties to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each along with a personal bond before the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi and an undertaking to the effect that the Appellant shall keep peace and good behaviour during the period of 06 months from the date of filing of such bond. The aforesaid bond shall be filed by the Appellant within a period of one month from today along with deposit of the fine as awarded by the learned trial court. Page No.# 9/9 16. With the above observations and directions, the present appeal stands disposed of. 17. Registry to send back the TCR forthwith, along with a copy of the present order for information and necessary action. JUDGE Comparing Assistant