GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON TUSHAR NATH V/S THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

GUWAHATI, India, May 30 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on April 30:

1. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [corresponding to Section 415 of BNSS, 2023] against the judgment and order dated 05.03.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon in Sessions Case No. 11 (BNG) / 2018 arising out of GR Case No. 769 / 2014 convicting the accused / appellant under Sections 302/341/323 of the IPC [corresponding to Sections 103/126/115 of BNS] and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the IPC [[corresponding to Section 103 BNS] and fine of Rs.10,000/-, i/d of payment of fine to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 2 months, also sentencing to SI for 15 days and fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 341 of the IPC [corresponding to Section 126 BNS] i/d of payment of fine suffer Simple Imprisonment for 5 days and further sentencing to undergo SI for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- i/d of payment of fine suffer SI for 15 days under Section 323 of the IPC [corresponding to Section 115 BNS].

2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 02.09.2014 by PW 1, who is the elder brother of the deceased. It has been alleged that on the previous evening at about 9:00 pm, the accused no. 1 (appellant) had come riding a bicycle in a high speed and careless manner and had almost dashed a group of persons and on being scolded, he ran away to his home and after some time, accompanied by the other accused persons, came with sharp weapons such as dao, axe and iron rods and assaulted randomly. In the said assault, when the deceased had tried to intervene, he was also assaulted randomly with the backside of the axe and thereby caused injury. Injury was also caused to another person, Jaleswar Nath with iron rod and the informant had also sustained injuries on his head, hand and various parts of his body. His younger brother (deceased) was accordingly taken to the Bongaigaon Civil Hospital when his condition was found to be critical and he had undergone treatment. Subsequently, on 13.09.2014, his younger brother had died and accordingly on 15.09.2014, Section 302 was added to the charges. In the said Ejahar, three accused persons were named out of which accused Tilak Nath, who is the brother of the appellant was acquitted and accused Prafulla Kumar Nath, who is the father of the appellant was imposed fine.

3. The investigation was accordingly done and after completion of the same, the Charge-sheet was laid which was exhibited as Ext.- 7. Thereafter, the charges were framed and upon denial thereof, the trial had begun in which the prosecution had adduced evidence through 12 nos. of PWs.

4. PW 1 is the informant, Basanta Nath, who is the elder brother of the deceased and he had proved the Ejahar as Ext.- 1. In his examination, PW 1 had deposed that the appellant had taken part in the assault and had assaulted the lower abdomen of the deceased with the blunt side i.e. the backside of the axe. He had also deposed that the operation on the deceased was done in the Lower Assam Hospital, Bongaigaon and it was found that his kidneys got damaged and on 13.09.2014, the deceased had passed away. In the crossexamination, the contradictions sought to be put to the PW 1 were however denied.

5. PW 2 is Jaleswar Nath, who was also in the place of occurrence and had narrated that the appellant had carelessly and in a high speed taken his bicycle whereupon he was scolded and thereafter he had come back with the other two accused persons and had caused the assault. He was also himself injured in the said assault. He is also witness to the Seizure List by which the Material Ext.- 1 i.e. axe and Material Ext.- 2 i.e. iron crowbar were seized. In the crossexamination, however he had denied the contradictions sought to be put before him.

6. PW 3 is a tea stall owner, who had however deposed that he came to know about the incident later and therefore his deposition may not be very relevant. Similarly, PW 4, PW 5 and PW 7 are hearsay witnesses whose evidence may not be very relevant. As regards, PW 6, in his cross-examination he had clarified that he was not an eyewitness. PW 8 is an inquest witness.

7. PW 9 is the Doctor, who had treated the deceased. He had deposed that the deceased had developed Septicemia as a result of which he had expired.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=U%2BbhtlrLe2adAHN8Tz%2F1d5xi1htEpx7rcGOr83QOMZ3uwj6Pg0Q8PAJKfxJgo9vo&caseno=Crl.A./148/2020&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010085652020&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.