[1]
CAUSE TITLE
Sessions Case No. 128/05
Informant: Sri Bhaskar Konwar, S/o- Sri Mohendra Konwar, R/o- Pulungani Gaon, PS- Tingkhong, District- Dibrugarh.
Accused Persons: (1) Sri Titu Ruhi Das, (2) Sri Dulal Gogoi, S/o- Late Haren Das, S/o- Sri Mukheswar Gogoi, R/o- Ghurania Gaon, R/o- Ghurania Gaon, P.S. - Tingkhong, P.S. - Tingkhong, District- Dibrugarh. District- Dibrugarh.
(3) Sri Sanjit Gogoi @ Papi, (4) Sri Bikash Chowdhury, S/o- Sri Parama Gogoi, S/o-Sri Munindra Chawdhury R/o- Ghurania Gaon, R/o- Ghurania Gaon, P.S. - Tingkhong, P.S. - Tingkhong, District- Dibrugarh. District- Dibrugarh.
(5) Sri Mukut Gogoi, (6) Sri Baba Chowdhury, S/o- Sri Biswanath Gogoi, S/o- Sri Khagen Chawdhary, R/o- Ghurania Gaon, R/o- Ghurania Gaon, P.S. - Tingkhong, P.S. - Tingkhong, District- Dibrugarh. District- Dibrugarh.
(7) Sri Mintu Gogoi, (8) Sri Santanu Gogoi, S/o- Sri Parama Gogoi, S/o- Bireswar Gogoi, R/o- Ghurania Gaon, R/o- Ghurania Gaon, P.S. - Tingkhong, P.S. - Tingkhong, District- Dibrugarh. District- Dibrugarh.
(9) Sri Suraj Gogoi, S/o- Sri Nitul Gogoi, R/O. Phulangani Gaon, P.S. - Tingkhong, District- Dibrugarh. Continued to page No. 2. [2]
(10) Sri Bidyut Bikash Gogoi (11) Sri Hemanta Gogoi, @ Bubul, S/o-Sri Sativam Gogoi, S/o- Sri Arup Gogoi, R/o-Na-Sripuria Gaon, R/o-Na-Sripuria Gaon, P.S. - Tingkhong, P.S. - Tingkhong, District- Dibrugarh District- Dibrugarh.
(12) Sri Budheswar Ghatowar, (13) Sri Mantu Chaudang, S/o-SriBiseswar Ghatowar, S/o- Sri Siba Chaudang, R/o-Jamaguri Gaon, R/o-Jamaguri Gaon, P.S. - Tingkhong, P.S. - Tingkhong, District- Dibrugarh. District- Dibrugarh.
(14) Sri Kushal Gogoi, S/o- Late Nagen Gogoi, R/o-Jamaguri Gaon, P.S. - Tingkhong, District- Dibrugarh.
15) Sri Sanat Gogoi, S/o- Sri KushalGogoi R/o- Konwari Gaon, PS- Tingkhong, District- Dibrugarh.
ADVOCATES:-
For the prosecution : Mr. S. Bhuyan, learned Public Prosecutor.
For the Defence : (1) Mr. G. Gogoi, learned Advocate. (2) Mr. A. Phukan, learned Advocate. (3) Mr. N. Jaiswal, learned Advocate. (4) Mr. D. Chetry, Learned Advocate.
Continued to page No. 3. [3]
IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE AT DIBRUGARH ::
Present : Smti. R. K. Phukan, AJS, Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh.
Sessions Case No. 128/2005 G. R. Case No. 459/2003
State of Assam
-Vs-
Sri Titu Ruhi Das & 14 others ------Accused Persons.
Charge U/Ss. 143/148/427/302 r/w S. 149 IPC.
Date of evidence on : 20.01.2006, 07.09.2007, 08.10.2007, 01.11.2007, 23.05.2008 28.11.2008, 02.01.2009, 25.08.2010, 02.05.2011, 20.06.2012, 10.07.2012, 19.10.2012, 17.06.2013, 19.08.2013, 02.09.2013, and 10.03.2014. Date of argument on : 22.04.2014 and 15.05.2014. Date of Judgment on : 29.05.2014 (Judgment could not be delivered as 4 Nos. accused persons did not turn up)
Date of Judgment on : 06.06.2014. J U D G M E N T
(1) This is a triple murder case of three sons of Mauzadar Mohendra Konwar of No. 2 Ghurania Gaon, a road side village of Moran Naharkatia road under Tingkhong police station, District- Dibrugarh. The said Mohendra Konwar has six sons namely Dilip Konwar, Tapan Konwar, Rajib Konwar, Pradip Konwar, Bhaskar Konwar and Souravh Konwar. Amongst the brothers Dilip Konwar, Tapan Konwar and Rajib Konwar were living together with their father in the same house while the other brother Souravh Konwar is Continued to page No. 4. [4] living in the same compound but in a separate house and Bhaskar Konwar and Pradip Konwar are living separately at a little distance from the house of their father in their individual houses. (2) It is the case of prosecution that on 14.04.2003 at about 7.30 p.m. the accused Sanjit @ Papi had a quarrel with Rajib Konwar in front of the house of Bhaskar Konwar. Again on the next day i.e. on 15.04.2003 the 1st day of Bohag Bihu at about 12.00 O’clock, on broad day light, all the accused persons armed with deadly weapon like Dao, Lathi, Axe etc. entered in to the house of Bhaskar Konwar and cut down several portion of the house including the gate, windows, trees etc. and also set fire to his Ambassador Car bearing No. NL-02-2699 and went out from his house. Thereafter at a little distance from his house on Naharkatia road, the accused persons cut his brothers, namely, Sri Dilip Konwar, Sri Tapan Konwar and Sri Rajib Konwar, who were coming to help him, and his brothers died on the spot for the injuries inflicted upon them. The matter was informed to Tingkhong police station by some other person namely Bubu Konwar of the locality and police hurriedly arrived at the place of occurrence after giving a G.D.E. being No. 250 dated 15.04.2003 and found three dead bodies of Dilip Konwar, Rajib Konwar and Tapan Konwa, lying at the Parbatipur Tiniali with severe cut injuries on their person. Inquest was made over the dead bodies and thereafter send the dead bodies for postmortem examination. In the mean time one brother of the deceased Bhaskar Konwar lodged the ejahar at 7.30 p.m. in the Tingkhong Police Station upon which a case was registered being Tingkhong P.S. Case No. 40/03 under Sections 147/148/149/447/302/427/435 IPC and the O/C himself taken up the investigation. He has already the visited the place of occurrence, so he adhered to further investigation and examined the witnesses, prepared a Sketch-Map of the place of occurrence, seized the weapon of offence, arrested the accused Continued to page No. 5. [5] persons, collected the Post-mortem Report and after completion of the investigation, he submitted Charge-Sheet against the accused persons under Sections 143/147/148/149/447/ 427/ 302 IPC. (3) The accused persons appeared before the learned Magistrate to face the trial and after furnishing the necessary copies, etc., to the accused persons, the case was committed to this Court being the offence triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions. (4) On appearance of the accused persons before this Court and after hearing the learned counsels for both the sides on the point of charge and considering the record, the statement of the witnesses and the documents referred U/S 173 CrPC, formal charge U/Ss. 143/148/427/ 302 r/w S. 149 IPC was framed and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. One of the accused Pranjal Gogoi was absconder and another accused Arup Gogoi died in course of the trial. (5) In order to bring home the charge against the accused persons, prosecution examined as many as thirty three witnesses. Defence side examined five witnesses. The plea of the defence is of total denial. The accused persons in their statement recorded u/S 313 CrPC, denied the allegations made against them and pleaded that they are innocent. (6) I have heard argument of learned counsels for both the sides and gone through the record. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION (7) (i) Whether on 15-04-03, the accused persons were the members of an unlawful assembly with common object to assault and kill the three persons Dilip Konwar, Rajib Konwar and Tapan Konwar as alleged? (ii) Whether the accused persons were armed with deadly weapon while forming an unlawful assembly as alleged? (iii) Whether the accused persons committed mischief by Continued to page No. 6. [6] causing wrongful loss or damage to the property of the informant Bhaskar Konwar as alleged? (iv) Whether the accused persons committed murder of Sri Dilip Konwar, Sri Rajib Konwar and Sri Tapan Konwar alleged? (v) Whether the accused persons were member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object to kill the above mentioned persons as alleged? DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF: (8) On categorization of the evidence on record, we will find that there are five numbers of eye witnesses to the occurrence who were the family members of the deceased persons named below. PW-1 Smti. Ranjani Konwar, wife of Sourabh Konwar (Sister- in-law of deceased persons) PW-2 Smti Tapasini Konwar, minor daughter of deceased Tapan Konwar PW-3 Smti. Jyoti Konwar, wife of deceased Tapan Konwar PW-4 Smti. Anjumoni Konwar, wife of deceased Rajib Konwar PW-12 Sri Kalyanmoy Konwar, son of deceased Dilip Konwar (9) There are nineteen numbers of independent witnesses who has deposed that they do not know any thing about the occurrence save and except the findings of three dead bodies lying at the place of occurrence. Some other witnesses has stated about the occurrence in the house of Bhaskar Konwar and some other persons arrived at the place of occurrence after the incident and supported the circumstances and facts happened in the house of informant. Rest are the official witness like M.O. and I.O. (10) The sister-in-law of the deceased persons and the informant, Smti. Ranjani Konwar/PW-1 has deposed that on 1st day of Bohag Month in the year 2003, around 11:30 am, prior to the occurrence, Continued to page No. 7. [7] her mother-in-law, Smti. Swarnalata Konwar told her that Dilip had gone out with a gun in his hand to the house of Bhaskar. While she went to make a call over phone and reached near the house of Deben Konwar, she heard halla. She along with Anjumoni Konwar/PW-4 and Jyoti Konwar/PW-3 went to the place where from the shout was raised and saw that the accused persons were assaulting, Dilip Konwar, Tapan Konwar and Rajib Konwar by shouting with Dao, sticks, khukuri in their hands. Accused Sanjib Gogoi assaulted Dilip Konwar on his head with an Axe and accused Budheswar Ghatowar assaulted Dilip Konwar with a khukuri on his face. Accused assaulted Tapan Konwar and he was given Axe blow on his head by accused Mintu Gogoi, S/O. Parama Gogoi. While Rajib Konwar was assaulted by accused, Mintu Gogoi with an Axe on his head, other accused persons also assaulted him with Dao, stick, etc. This witness has stated that she herself saw the whole incident with his own eyes and the said three persons were died on the spot. After the occurrence, all the accused fled away from the place of occurrence. She has given statement before Magistrate U/S 164 CrPC vide Exht. 1 and Exht. 1 (1) and Exht. 1 (2) are her signatures. In cross-examination for accused, Bishnu Gogoi and Suraj Gogoi, this witness has stated that at the time of occurrence, shops were there and though a bazar was situated about 50 meter away from the house of the informant, Bhaskar Konwar, but on the day of occurrence, no bazar was held. She denied the suggestion that on the day of occurrence, as it was the time of Bihu, so the said bazar was open and people were present there. She also denied the suggestion that she did not see the Dao and stick (lathi), etc. at the hands of the accused and she did not see as to who assaulted whom. In cross-examination conducted by the learned defence Counsel Sri N. Jaiswal, this witness has stated that accused, Mintu Gogoi assaulted Rajib Konwar with an Axe on his backside. She Continued to page No. 8. [8] went to the place of occurrence along with Jyoti Konwar, Tapaswini Konwar, Anjumoni Konwar, Kalyanmoy Konwar and they also saw the occurrence. In cross-examination for rest of the accused persons, this witness has stated that he cannot recall who informed her about the setting of fire to the house and vehicle of Bhaskar Konwar. A bazar was held on the other side of the road of Bhaskar Konwar. She denied the suggestion that originally the said bazar was held on the side of the house of Bhaskar Konwar and on the day of occurrence also, the bazar was held. She also denied the fact that there was dispute over the bazar between the people and Bhaskar Konwar and as Bhaskar closed the bazar so Dilip, Tapan and Rajib went there by carrying gun for which people assaulted them and killed. She has stated that the Namghar of the accused was not followed by other people. She denied the suggestion that the Moujadar family was given up by the villagers because of some disputes and public killed the deceased. She also denied the suggestion that he did not see the occurrence. (11) The minor daughter of the deceased Tapan Konwar, Smti. Tapaswini Konwar/PW-2, aged 14 years has deposed that on the 1st day of Bohag in the year 2003, the accused persons killed her father, Sri Tapan Konwar, husband of her mother's elder sister, Sri Dilip Konwar and uncle, Sri Rajib Konwar with Dao, stick (lathi), etc., at the place of occurrence and she had seen the whole incident with her own eyes. In cross-examination conducted by learned counsel Mr. G. Gogoi, she has denied the suggestion that at the time of occurrence, she was playing and cannot say whether her father was in the house of Dilip Konwar or not. She has also denied the suggestion that on the day of occurrence, a bazar was held in front of the house of the informant, Bhaskar Konwar and her father along Continued to page No. 9. [9] with Rajib and Dilip went there to stop the bazar. She denied the suggestion that while his father, etc., went to stop the bazar by carrying gun, etc., the bazar people killed her father and accused persons were not present at the place of occurrence. She has also denied the suggestion that there was dispute between her family and the accused persons. In cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel, Mr. A. Phukan, this witness has stated that she was studying in Class-IV/V at the time of occurrence. She has denied the suggestion that because of her tender age, she could not identify those persons, who caused the occurrence and while she was proceeding to the place of occurrence, nobody accompanied her. (12) The wife of the deceased Tapan Konwar, Smti. Jyoti Konwar/ PW-3, has deposed that on the 1st day of Bohag, around 11:00 am, while she was washing dishes in her house, hearing the halla towards the house of informant, Bhaskar Konwar, her husband Tapan Konwar went there along with her. She has stated that at the place of occurrence, the accused persons assaulted her elder-brother- in-law, Dilip Konwar, her husband and elder-brother-in-law, Rajib Konwar with Dao and lathi and all these persons died on the spot. While she along with Ranjani Konwar/PW-1 and Anjumoni Konwar/PW-4 raised halla, all the accused fled away from the place of occurrence. In cross-examination conducted by the learned defence counsel, Mr. G. Gogoi, this witness has stated that she cannot recollect the name of the person, who informed her about the occurrence. She denied the suggestion that she gave her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC before the Magistrate as tutored by police, who was standing near the chamber at the time of deposition. In another cross-examination, conducted by the learned Continued to page No. 10. [10] defence counsel, Mr. A. Phukan, this witness has denied the suggestion that she had not seen the occurrence. She has stated that about 18 (eighteen) persons were there and she had seen all the occurrence from a visible distance. In cross-examination, conducted by the learned defence counsel, Mr. N. Jaiswal, this witness has stated that the occurrence took place at the poduli (in front of the gate) of Kartik Gogoi and Kolameswar was watching the occurrence from his varandah. She has stated that she had not stated as to who assaulted whom and how. (13) The wife of deceased, Rajib Konwar, Mrs. Anjumoni Konwar/PW-4 has deposed that on the 1st day of Bohag in the year 2003, hearing halla at Parbotipur Tiniali, she along with Dilip Konwar, her husband Rajib Konwar, Tapan Konwar, Rajani Konwar, Jyoti Konwar, Kalyan Konwar went to the place of occurrence and had seen that the accused persons were raising halla with Dao, Axe, lathi, dagger, etc. in their hands and accused, Sanjit Gogoi @ Popi assaulted Dilip Konwar on his head with Axe. Accused Mukut, Budhey Ghatowar, Sanad, etc. started to cut Dilip Konwar with Dao and axe. Thereafter, other accused assaulted Tapan Konwar. At the time when accused, Arup Gogoi stabbed Rajib Konwar with a bamboo on his belly, other accused Mintu Gogoi and Titu Gogoi assaulted Rajib with Axe, Dao, etc. Accused Arup Gogoi and Kushal Gogoi instigated other accused to assault more to the deceased. Rajib Konwar, Dilip Konwar and Tapan Konwar died on the spot and all the accused fled away from the place of occurrence. She has also stated that the mother of accused, Mintu and wives of the accused, Arup and Suraj were present at the place of occurrence and these three women had instigate all the accused to assault the deceased. This witness has stated that she saw the whole incident with her own eyes. Police came to the place of occurrence and in the Continued to page No. 11. [11] mean time all the accused persons left the place of occurrence in an Ambassador vehicle, bicycles and on foot. She has given statement before Magistrate vide Exht. 2 and Exht. 2 (1) and Exht. 2 (2) are her signatures. In cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel, Mr. G. Gogoi on behalf of his accused, this witness has denied the suggestion that her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC was made as tutored by police, who was present at the time of deposition near the chamber of Magistrate and they have dispute with all the accused persons. She also denied the suggestion that she did not go to the place of occurrence and did not see the occurrence. She also denied the suggestion that the victims were killed by the bazar people. In another cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel, Mr. N Jaiswal, this witness has stated that Bhuban, Prasanta Gogoi and another person were watching the occurrence. (14) The minor son of the deceased Dilip Konwar Sri Kalyanmoy Konwar/PW-12 has deposed that on the 1st day of Bohag in the year 2003, while he was playing on the road at about 12:30 pm, somebody told him that three persons belonging to the family of Bhaskar had quarreled. Knowing about the fact, while his father came out with a gun, accused Budheswar Ghatowar was standing on the road and he threw a Dao to his father which did not hit him. His father came back to his house and he again followed the accused. He was also followed by his uncle Tapan and Rajib. Thereafter, while accused Mintu Gogoi, Bidyut Bikash Gogoi, Mukut Gogoi, Sanat Gogoi and Mantu Chawdang attacked his father with stone and Dao, his father fell down. While deceased, Rajib tried to save the father of this witness, then accused Mintu and Bidyut Bikash Gogoi assaulted Rajib with axe and Dao from backside on his head for which he fell down. During the course, while accused Budheswar Continued to page No. 12. [12]
Ghatowar hit Tapan with a Dao on his neck, accused Papi Gogoi assaulted Tapan on his stomach with a khukuri. Accused Chitra Gogoi assaulted the father of this witness with a lathi. He saw the whole incident as he along with his aunt followed them. He has stated that all accused persons assaulted his father Dilip Konwar and Tapan and Rajib died as a result of assault caused by all accused persons, all three persons died. Exht. 8 is his statement before Magistrate and Exht. 8 (1) to Exht 8 (3) are his signatures. In cross-examination, he has stated that on the day of occurrence, no bazar was held near the house of informant, Bhaskar. He denied the suggestion that his father was killed in the said bazar people. His father carried their own gun. He does not know if the land of the said bazar was claimed by his father. He denied the suggestion that his father went to close the bazar for which the bazar people killed his father near the said bazar road. He also denied the suggestion that Mintu, Bidyut, Mukut and Mantu pelted stones and hacked his father with a dao. He denied the suggestion that accused Budheswar assaulted Tapan with a khukuri and accused Chitra assaulted his father with lathi. He denied the suggestion that he was remained away about 2 (two) furlong and had not seen as to who assaulted whom. He stated that the place of occurrence was Parbotipur Tiniali and so many shops were there, but he did not notice whether those shops were closed or open. Jyoti Konwar, Anju Konwar and Tupusine Kowar were along with him. One Prabin Gogoi was also present and he saw the occurrence. (15) The wife of the informant Smti. Rohila Konwar/PW-5 has deposed that on the 1st day of Bohag Bihu in the year 2003, around 11:00 am, on getting the information about the occurrence from the people, she went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead bodies of her brother-in-laws, Dilip Konwar, Tapan Konwar and Rajib Konwar lying in place of occurrence. Police came and investigate Continued to page No. 13. [13] the case. She gave her statement before Magistrate. Exht. 5 is her statement and Exht. 5 (1) and Exht. 5 (2) are her signatures. She has further stated that prior to assault to her elder brother-in-laws, accused Bidyut Bikash Gogoi, Mantu Chawdang, Santanu Gogoi, Popi Gogoi, Suraj Gogoi, Bishnu Gogoi, Sanat Gogoi, Titu Ruhi Das and Budheswar Ghatowar and others went to the house of the informant and by cutting the gate with Dao/Axe and asked her husband to come out from the house. But she remained in the house with her husband and children. Then the accused persons set fire to their Ambassador vehicle and damaging so many articles and left the place. In cross-examination, conducted by the learned counsel, Mr. G. Gogoi, she has stated that there was a bazar opposite to their house and one allegation was cast upon her husband about damaging of said bazar. She heard that there was a Yubak Sangha and she does not know if the accused were members of said Yubak Sangha. (16) The informant Sri Bhaskar Konwar/PW-6 has deposed that on the 1st day of Bohag in the year 2003, around 10/10:30am, all the accused went to his house by raising shout and rebuke him by his name. At that time, he remained inside his house with his wife and children by locking the door. The accused persons by breaking the boundary wall, set fire to his vehicle and went towards Parbotipur Tiniali. While he came out from his house to the gate, military person told him that three persons had been assaulting. He immediately went to Parbotipur Tiniali and found the dead body of his brothers, Dilip Konwar, Tapan Konwar in a pool of blood. In cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel, Mr. G. Gogoi on behalf of his accused, this witness has stated that he has not seen as to who killed the victims. On being informed by Army about the occurrence, he along with Army went to the place of occurrence in their vehicle. He denied the suggestion that he stated Continued to page No. 14. [14] before police that on the day of Bihu, i.e., 15-04-03, he was in his house at around 11:00 and there were people on the road and shops were open. He also denied the suggestion that bazar people had killed his brothers. Learned counsel, Mr. N. Jaiswal and Mr. A. Phukan has declined to cross-examine this witness on behalf of their accused. PW-6 has further stated that he has stated that he lodged the ejahar vide Ext. 8(A) wherein Ext. 8(A)(1) is his signature. His Ambassador car burnt into ashes which was seized by police along with pipe, window frame, etc. from his house vide Ext. 14 wherein Ext. 14(1) is his signature. In further cross-examination, this witness has denied that in his first deposition, he had not stated that he lodged the ejahar and it was false. The said ejahar was written by one, Urmila Gohain Phukan. He denied the suggestion that no car, pipe and window frame were seized by police. (17) The brother of the three deceased persons Sri Pradip Konwar/ PW-7 has deposed that on the 1st day of Bohag in the year 2003, while he was at Rajgarh, he was informed by one of his brothers, Saurav Konwar that his brothers, Dilip, Tapan and Rajib had been killed. He immediately rushed to the place of occurrence in an another vehicle and on the way, he saw that accused Dulal Gogoi was driving an Ambassador car along with other accused and looking at him, they closed the window of the vehicle. After reaching the place of occurrence, he found the dead body of his three brothers with injuries caused by Dao and dagger. Police went to the place of occurrence and he lodged an ejahar vide Ext. 7 wherein Ext. 7(1) is his signature. In cross-examination, he has stated that he did not see the occurrence. He denied the suggestion that there was conflict between the villagers and Mouzadar as he had captured the land of Continued to page No. 15. [15] the villagers. During his further cross examination, he has stated that police came to the place of occurrence after the incident and conducted inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased, Rajib Konwar vide Ext. 9, Dilip Konwar vide Ext. 10 and Tapan Konwar vide Ext. 11 wherein Ext. 9(1), Ext. 10(1) and Ext. 11(1) are his signatures. Again he has stated that he found cut injury on the face of deceased, Dilip starting from mouth up to neck, forehead, etc., along with mark of injury caused by rod on the whole body. He also found cut injury over the mouth, face, forehead, etc. of deceased, Tapan along with multiple cut injury over right and back side of head. (18) The another brother of the three deceased persons Sri Souravh Konwar/PW-8 has deposed that on the day of Bohag Bihu in the year 2003, on getting the information from his own son, Pabitra, that his brothers, Dilip, Rajib and Tapan had been killed at Parbotipur Tiniali, he went to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of his deceased brothers. One Pradip Gogoi was shouting that as the murder was committed by public, so nothing would happen. He has stated that all the accused persons had killed his brothers. After the occurrence, he informed the matter to his elder brother, Pradip Konwar. In cross-examination, he has stated that he had heard about the occurrence from his son and niece. (19) Another witnesses Sri Bhabani Gogoi/PW-9, Sri Chandan Gogoi/PW-10, Sri Prasanta Gogoi/PW-11, Sri Ramesh Gogoi/ PW-15, Sri Bipin Chandra Gogoi/PW-16, Kanak Konwar/ PW-17, Muleswar Chowdhary/PW-18, Bulu Dutta/PW-19, Shasanka Baruah/PW-21, Bisheswar Dihingia/PW-22, Jogen Gogoi/PW-23, Minal Gogoi/PW-24, Pranabjyoti Konwar/PW-25 and Jatin Gogoi/PW-26 all of them are from the locality have simply stated that they have heard about the fact that some body had killed the Continued to page No. 16. [16] deceased persons Dilip Konwar, Rajib Konwar and Tapan Konwar. But they do not know as to how the occurrence took place. (20) Further Jatin Gogoi/PW-26, Tileswar Gogoi/PW-30, and Sukheswar Gogoi/PW-33 has deposed that they simply signed the seizure list Exht. 13 but they do not know about the content of Exht. 13. and Exht. 13 (1), (2) & (3) are their signatures respectively. (21) The witnesses Bipin Gogoi/PW-16, Ratul Gogoi/PW-31 and Dibakor Gogoi @ Dulal/PW-32 were declared hostile by prosecution but they denied to have any knowledge about the occurrence, though their statement U/S 161 CrPC were proved by the I.O. So their evidence is of no avail. (22) The daughter of the informant, Bhaskar Konwar, Smti. Sukanya Konwar/PW-13 has deposed that on the day of occurrence, around 11:30 am, she was reading in side her house with one kaka, Sinmoy Konwar and while she came out, she found gathering of 40 (forty) people on the road. She entered into the house and informed her father and mother and her father directed her to close the door. At that time, about 30/40 people entered into their compound by opening the gate the tried to break the home. Thereafter, they set fire in to the car. They asked her father to come out and about ½ hour, they left the place. Army went to their village and informed them three persons was lying dead at Parbatipur. Her father went there with Army and came to know that his three brothers, namely, Tapan, Rajib and Dilip died. In cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel, Mr. G Gogoi, this witness has denied the suggestion that Bihu bazar was held in front of their house and her father went there to stop the bazar where about 250/300 persons gathered. He has also denied the suggestion that her father informed Tapan, Rajib and Dilip came armed with gun to stop the bazar and during the course, the bazar people killed the three persons. Continued to page No. 17. [17] In further cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel, Mr. A. Phukan, this witness has denied the suggestion that because of close of door and window, she did not notice who entered into their compound. (23) The son of the informant, Bhaskar Konwar, Sri Chinmoy Konwar/PW-14 has deposed that on the day of occurrence, all accused persons entered into their house by opening the gate. They disconnected electric line along with telephone line, damaged the Ambassador car by breaking and setting fire, and cut window. They also tried to break the grill, back door, wall of the house and damaging the water pipe etc., all the accused left the place. While an Army car arrived there, they called them and the Army informed the father of this witness that three persons were found dead at a little distance away from their house. His father went along with the Army and found the dead body of his three deceased brother. In cross-examination, he has stated that he cannot say who killed Dilip, Tapan and Rajib. He has denied the suggestion that on the day of occurrence, bazar was held and because of trying to stop the bazar by his father, the bazar people averted his father and his father called Dilip, Tapan and Rajib, who came there to assault the people and they were killed by the bazar people. (24) The PW-20/Sri Khagen Gandhia Phukan, who is the relative of the deceased, has stated that on 15th day of April, 2003, Pradip Konwar was sitting at his house and suddenly, while he came out from his house, he along with his sister followed him from Rajgarh to Ghurania. This witness directly went to Parbatipur Tiniali and found the dead body of Dilip Konwar, Tapan Konwar and Rajib Konwar with cut injury on the neck of Dilip Konwar. He also found cut injury on the head and on the whole body of Dilip. He found cut injury at the right head of Tapan with multiple injuries over his body. He also found cut injury on the head of Rajib. Police came to the Continued to page No. 18. [18] place of occurrence and conducted inquest over the dead body vide Exts. 10 and Ext. 11 wherein Ext. 10(2) and Ext. 11(3) are his signatures. In cross-examination, this witness has denied the suggestion that he was not present at the time of inquest. Further he has stated that police seized one gun, one hilt (nal) of khukuri, bicycle along with three live cartridges from the place of occurrence vide Ext. 12 wherein Ext. 12(1) is his signature. (25) Dr. BC Roy Medhi/PW-27 has stated that on 16-04-03, he conducted post-mortem examination up on the dead bodies of three deceased persons namely Dilip Konwar, Rajib Konwar and Tapan Konwar. On post-mortem examination conducted up on the dead body of the deceased, Dilip Konwar, he found the following- Injuries: 1. One cut injury 10 cm x 3 cm x mandible cut deep present on mid-chin; 2. One cut injury 12 cm x 4 cm x muscle deep & maxilla bone cut deep, present on middle of left cheek cutting up to cavity and part of left ear; 3. One cut injury from left angle of mouth towards left 6 cm x 1 cm x maxilla cut deep. Teeth cut and fractured; 4. One cut injury from mid line towards right forehead 5 cm x 2 cm x right frontal bone cut deep; 5. One cut injury on upper left forehead 4 cm x 1 cm x frontal bone cut deep; 6. One oblique cut injury from mid frontal backwards towards left occipital bone on scalp 10 cm x 2 cm x skull bone deep; 7. One oblique cut injury 10 cm x 2 cm x bone cut deep on anterior right parietal region of scalp; Continued to page No. 19. [19]
8. One cut injury 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on anterior aspect of middle of right forearm (defence injury). Blood clots are firmly adherent in all the above injuries;
Cranium and Spinal Canal
Scalp : Cut injuries as described. On dissection, contusions present in parietal, occipital and frontal regions. Skull: cut injuries as described. Membrane and brain also found cut along some cut injury of scalp and skull. In the brain, inter-cerebral haemorrhage present. Conducting the post-mortem of the deceased, this witness has opined that cause of death was coma and shock resulting from the injuries sustained on the head and other parts of body as described. Injuries were ante mortem and caused by heavy sharp cutting weapons and homicidal in nature. On post-mortem examination conducted up on the dead body of the deceased, Rajib Konwar, he found the following- Injuries: 1. One abrasion with contusion 6 x 4 cm on middle part of chest wall; 2. One cut injury obliquely placed 9 x 2 cm x scalp, skull and brain cut deep (3cm depth) present on anterior part of right parietal region of scalp; 3. One cut injury 7 cm x 1 cm x brain cut deep present on mid line over the vertebrae; 4. One cut injury 7 cm x 1 cm x scalp layers cut deep on left lower parietal region; 5. 3 numbers of parallel cut injuries 6 cm x 1 cm; 5 cm x 1 cm; 4 cm x 1 cm respectively. All the injuries were skull cut deep present on left occipital region;
6. One cut injury 8 x 3 cm x brain cut deep 3 cm in depth present on posterior part of parietal region transversely Continued to page No. 20. [20]
7. placed. Blood clots were found firmly adherent in the above wounds. Cranium and Spinal Canal: Scalp and skull: Cut injuries present as described. Membrane and brain found cut along with brain cut deep injuries as described. Conducting the post-mortem of the deceased, this witness has opined that immediate death was resulted from the cut injuries sustained on the head. Injury No. 1 was caused by blunt impact and others were caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon. All injuries were antemortem and homicidal in nature. On post-mortem examination conducted up on the dead body of the deceased, Tapan Konwar, he found the following- Injuries: 1. One cut injury 12 cm x 4 cm x maxilla bone cut deep present anterior-posteriorly on middle part of left cheek cutting the middle part of the left ear also; 2. One cut injury on left lower parietal and occipital region of scalp 15 cm x 3 cm x skull and brain cut deep (about 3 cm); 3. One cut injury on left side of occipital region just above injury No. 2 measuring 6 cm x 1 cm x bone cut deep; 4. One cut injury on left side of occipital region of scamp just above injury No. 3 measuring 5 cm x 1 cm x bone cut deep; 5. One cut injury on upper most part of left side of neck below the angle of mandible 4 x 1 cm x muscle deep; 6. Cut injury 3 x 1 cm; 2 x 1 cm; another 1 x 0.5 cm x all bone deep present on dorsum of left hand (defence injury). Blood clots firmly adherent in the wounds. Conducting the post-mortem of the deceased, this witness has opined that cause of death was coma and shock resulting from the injuries sustained on the head and other parts of the body described. The injuries were ante mortem and caused by heavy sharp cutting Continued to page No. 21. [21] weapon and homicidal in nature. He has further stated that Exht. 15, Exht. 16 and Exht. 17 are the P.M. Reports and Exht. 15 (1), Exht. 16 (1) and Exht. 17 (1) are his signatures. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that he himself conducted the post-mortem examination. However, Sweepers were present at the time of post-mortem examination. At that time, he noted and subsequently, he prepared the Post-mortem Reports. During the process of post-mortem examination, he keep usually such things. At that times, the Sweepers as his direction, used to do certain dissection. He had not handed over the notes prepared at the time of examination to police. In this case, videography was not ordered and accordingly, it was not done. He denied the suggestion that he himself did not conduct the post-mortem examination on the aforesaid dead bodies and he prepared the Post-mortem Report on some presumptions. (26) The Investigating Officer Sri Ranjit Moran, S.I./PW-28 has stated that on 15-04-13, while he was Officer-in-charge at Tingkhong Police Station, on that day, about 12:45 pm, one Babu Konwar verbally informed him that the dead bodies of three persons were lying on the Moran-Naharkatia roadside. On receipt of the said information, a GDE was made and he along with staff proceeded to the place of occurrence situated at No. 2 Ghurania Gaon. The dead bodies of three persons were lying with cut injuries on their person which were identified by as Dilip Konwar, Rajib Konwar and Tapan Konwar. He has stated that as it was the Bihu holiday, no Magistrate could be found and so he himself conducted inquest over the dead bodies and prepared the Inquest Reports vide Ext. 9, Ext. 10 and Ext. 11 wherein Ext. 9(3), Ext. 10(2) and Ext. 11(2) are his signatures. He sent the dead bodies for postmortem examination and seized one single barrel gun along with 3 (three) cartridges from the place of occurrence vide Ext. 12 wherein Ext. 12(1) is his signature. Continued to page No. 22. [22]
He recorded the statement of witnesses at the place of occurrence. From the statement of the complainant, Bhaskar Konwar, he could learn that accused, Popi Gogoi, Mukut Gogoi, Pranjal Gogoi, Budheswar Ghatowar, Baba Mintu Chowdhury, Bikash Chowdhury, Moon @ Suresh Gogoi, Tito Rabidas, Bishnu, etc., were involved with the murder. He prepared a sketch map of the place of occurrence. While he went to the house of Sri Bhaskar Konwar, he came to learn that prior to the occurrence, the accused persons made attempt to set fire to the house. He seized the damaged Ambassador car and some pieces of wood, etc., from the house premises of Sri Bhaskar Konwar vide Ext. 14 wherein Ext. 14(2) is his signature. On the same day, he received the ejahar from Sri Bhaskar Konwar and a case was registered to which he himself already took up investigation. On the day of occurrence, he arrested accused, Titu and Bishnu @ Moina, who had stated before him that they were the witnesses and they were not involved with the commission of crime and Mukut, Popi, Mintu, Baba, etc., were involved with the commission of the crime. Thereafter, he examined rest of the witnesses under Section 161 CrPC. He has stated that most of the accused persons were avoiding from police arrest and as such, he could not arrest them. He arrested Dulal Gogoi and Bijoy in connection with this case and on 19-05-03, accused Hanjit Gogoi himself surrendered before police and an axe was seized from him vide Ext. 13 wherein Ext. 13(2) is his signature. Accused Popi @ Sanjit Gogoi used the said seized Axe to kill Rajib Konwar and Dilip Konwar. Prior to filing of Charge-Sheet, he was transferred and accordingly, he handed over the case diary to the Officer-in- charge of the said police station and after completion of the investigation, S.I., Sri P. K. Bora submitted the Charge Sheet against the accused persons vide Ext. 18 wherein Ext. 18(1) is the signature of S.I. , Sri P. K. Bora. Continued to page No. 23. [23]
Further, to prove the G.D.E. he has stated that he was the Investigating Officer of Tingkhong P.S. Case No. 40/03 and at that time, he was also the Officer-in-charge of the said police station. On that day, at 12:45 pm, one Bubu Konwar of Namati Ghurania Gaon, PS- Tingkhong, came to the police station and informed that three persons were lying in injured condition on the road of No. 2 Ghurania Gaon and he was not sure whether the injured persons were dead or alive. Accordingly, he entered the same in the General Diary being GDE No. 250 dtd. 15-04-03 ( volume No. 6 with effect from 14-04-03 to 03-05-03) vide Ext. 21 and Ext. 21(1) is the relevant entry wherein Ext. 21(2) is his signature below the entry. Immediately, he left for the place of occurrence along with his staff and subsequelty, one Sri Bhaskar Konwar filed a written ejahar vide Ext. No. 8. In cross-examination, he has stated that he received the verbal information from one Bubu Konwar at about 12:45 pm which was recorded in the GDE, but he has not given copy of the said GDE to said person. He cannot say the content of the GDE without going through it. He also examined the said informant, Sri Bubu Konwar @ Saurabh Konwar. While he reached at the place of occurrence around 1:10 pm, he found three dead bodies which were lying on the roadside and at that time, the local villagers gathered there. At that time, only two women were found, who were crying near the dead bodies and he asked these women about the occurrence, but they did not disclose their names as they were crying. SI Bhupen Konwar was with him along with a battalion force and Pradip Konwar, Khagen and Shasanka Baruah identified the dead bodies before them. Pradip Konwar, Khagen Gandhia Phukan and Shasanka Baruah were the witnesses to the inquest conducted on the dead bodies of the deceased. He found Pradip Konwar at the place of Continued to page No. 24. [24] occurrence and he was examined on the next day of occurrence. The wife of the deceased persons could not be examined on 15th as they were not in a proper state, so they were examined on 16th. He denied the suggestion that he accompanied the witnesses when they went to record their statement before the Magistrate and they give their statement as tutored by him. He denied the suggestion that as an influential person, the father of the deceased influenced his investigation. Muleswar Chowdang and Kanak Konwar have stated before him that they went to sell meat near the bazar. He denied the suggestion that he manipulated the documents and accordingly, he purchased the witnesses to give their statements under Section 164 CrPC. He has further stated that the witness PW-16/Sri Bipin Chandra Gogoi has stated before him that- “While I was coming from Na-Sripuria via Parbotipur Tiniali to my house around 11:00 am, I heard hue and cry near Namati Tiniali and saw many people were running with Dao, sword, etc. On the other hand, I met Dilip, Rajib and Tapan, who were going by riding three bicycles towards Namati and at that time, Dilip was armed with a gun, Rajib with a Sword and Tapan with a Dao in hands and though I asked them not to go there, they did not listen to me. The wives of these three persons were following them and while they asked me as to what was happening, I replied that I do not know anything. I kept myself in my house and after a little time, I heard hue and cry on the road and people were running by shouting. I came to learn that Dilip, Tapan and Rajib was killed by the son of Parama Gogoi, Mintu Gogoi, Tuit @ Pranjal Gogoi, Sanjib Gogoi @ Popi, Manak Gogoi @ Chitra, Mukut Gogoi, Baba Chawdhury, Bikash Chawdhury, Budhe Ghatowar @ Budheswar, etc., and I saw these persons gathering with arms in their hands.” The witness, PW-31/Sri Ratul Gogoi has stated before him Continued to page No. 25. [25] that- “On the previous day of occurrence, I saw Bhaskar and Bikash Chawdhury returning with injuries on their forehead.” The witness, PW-32/Sri Dibakor Gogoi has stated before this witness that- “At 11:00 am, Dilip, Rajib and Tapan was killed with Dao, Sword, Axe, etc.” This witness has stated that he seized an Axe as shown by accused, Sanjit Gogoi vide M. Ext. 13. The PW-28 has stated that while he examined the witness, PW-16/Sri Bipin Chandra Gogoi at the place of occurrence, he stated before this witness that he saw Dilip Konwar, Tapan Konwar and Rajib Konwar by riding three bicycles armed with gun, sword and Dao. On that day, bazar was not held. At the time of seizure of Axe, it was not mentioned in the Seizure List that blood was remain on the said Axe and he did not take the finger print of the accused. He did not seize the license of the single barrel gun and it was not mentioned in the Seizure List as to who was of the owner of said license. He has stated that license is required to purchase the three seized cartridges from licensed dealer and the numbers of said cartridges may occur from other cartridges also. He did not inquire as to who sold the said three cartridges. In further cross-examination, this witness has stated that though he had examined one Saurabh Konwar, he did not mention that his name as Saurabh @ Bubu. He denied the suggestion that the said Saurabh Konwar did not disclose that he is the informant, Bubu Konwar nor he stated about the fact that he informed at police station earlier. He has stated that during the course of investigation, he was transferred. He denied the suggestion that he was transferred due to the faulty investigation and he had favoured the informants in the investigation. He has stated that he prepared the Inquest Report. (27) The wife of the deceased Dilip Konwar, Smti. Bhabani Konwar/PW-29 has stated that on the 1st day of Bohag, around Continued to page No. 26. [26]
9/9:30 am, while she was going to Naharkatia, he saw the accused gathering in front of the house of his elder-brother-in-law, Sri Bhaskar Konwar and without suspecting anything wrong, she left for Naharkatia. On her return from Naharkatia, she came to know that her husband and younger-brother-in-law had been killed by the accused. She saw the dead body of her husband, Dilip Konwar and younger-brother-in-laws, Tapan Konwar and Rajib Konwar with cut injuries on their bodies. She came to know from her family members that the accused persons killed her husband along with her two younger-brother-in-laws. In cross-examination, she has stated that she personally did not see the occurrence, but she saw the accused persons. She denied the suggestion that a bazar was held in front of the house of informant, Sri Bhaskar Konwar and there was a land dispute between the parties. She has also denied the suggestion that on the day of occurrence, a bazar was held and the bazar people killed the three deceased. (28) The defence plea in this case originally was that their was a bazar near the house of Bhaskar Konwar/the informant and due to the land dispute with bazar people with the informant Bhaskar, those bazar people killed the three brothers of Bhaskar. But after lapse of so many years and after completion of evidence, defence come up with so many different plea like two of the accused persons Bishnu Gogoi and Chitra Gogoi were minors at the time of occurrence and other accused Bidyut Bikash, Sanat Gogoi Arup Gogoi, Hemanta Gogoi and Mantu Chowdang were not present at the time of occurrence. (Plea of alibi). (29) However plea of juvenility being legal phenomena which can be raised at any stage so matter was taken up for inquiry. As regard the age, the Head Master of the School where those two accused persons studied was examined as DW-4 who has by producing the Continued to page No. 27. [27] relevant register of the school has proved the fact that as per school register vide Exht. D the date of birth of the accused Bishnu Gogoi is 31.08.1990 and on 25.04.2003 the age of the accused Bishnu Gogoi was 12 years 7 months and 24 days wherein Exht. D (1) is his signature and Exht. C is the School leaving certificate issued to him by school authority. The DW-4 has also proved that the date of birth of the accused Chitra Gogoi is 05.06.1988 vide Exht. D (2) and on 25.04.2003 the accused Chitra Gogoi was 14 years, 10 months and 20 days. On such findings those two accused persons were declared juvenile. (30) To prove the plea of alibi the defence has examined the following witnesses who belongs to their locality. (31) Sri Tirtha Gogoi/DW-1 has stated that in the year 2003, on getting phone call, he went to Naharani Hospital and met Bidyut Bikash and his brother. On the same day evening, he came to know that an incident of murder had happened. In cross-examination conducted by prosecution, this witness has stated that prior to the date of occurrence, he was at hospital and on the next day, at about 11:30 am, he came back to his house along with Bidyut Bikash. He heard about the murder at hospital. He has denied the suggestion that father of Bidyut was not in the hospital nor he himself and Bidyut did not attended hospital duty on the day of occurrence. (32) Dr. Dhirendra Nath Bhangthai/ DW-2 has stated that while he was at Naharani PHC as Sub-Divisional Medical and Health Officer, accused Sri Sanad Gogoi was admitted in the PHC for his ailment as indoor patient on 10-04-2003, at 8:15 pm and he was discharged on 16-04-2003 and at that time, he was under his supervision. The accused Sri Arup Gogoi was also admitted as indoor patient on 17-03-2003 and he was discharged on 24-04-2003 and during the said period, he was also under the supervision of this witness. Continued to page No. 28. [28] In cross-examination conducted by the prosecution, this witness has stated that both registers are belonged to Naharani PHC and it was kept in the said PHC. He brought both registers as directed by the Court. He has stated that Namati Chariali is about 2 (two) kilometers away from Naharani PHC. All the patient must present between 8:00 am to 9:00 pm in the PHC. They sometimes left hospital for a short period of time subject to their health condition. He has stated that he cannot say if these two accused, Sanat and Arup, went out of the hospital after 9:00 am for a short period of time. (33) Sri Sunil Gogoi/DW-3 in his evidence on behalf of accused, Hemanta Gogoi, has stated that his house is adjacent to the house of accused persons. On the day of occurrence, he heard that three persons had been killed by the market people and he heard the names of the accused persons through newspaper. He has stated that he along with Dilip Konwar, Tapan Konwar and Rajib Konwar, were going to the village to take sewa (blessings) of their parents. They heard about the occurrence there and he did not see the occurrence. In cross-examination conducted by prosecution, he has stated that Hemanta is not his own brother, but he belongs to their village. He took the blessings of his family members and Hemanta also took his family member's blessings. The rituals were completed at around 11:30/12 and thereafter, they arranged a joint feast. He has stated that he was not present at the place of occurrence. He has denied the suggestion that Hemanta went out of his house in the early morning to Namati Chariali where the occurrence took place. (34) Sri Lakhindra Konwar/DW-5 has stated that in the year 2003, on the eve of Bohag Bihu, while he was in his house, accused Mantu Chawdang came to his house and told that accused Arup Gogoi had called him, who was lying in Naharani PHC about 8:00 am. On the 1st day of Bohag Bihu, he went with Mantu to Naharani PHC and Continued to page No. 29. [29] found Arup lying in the said PHC along with Bidyut Bikash Gogoi and Tirtha Gogoi with him. As there was friendship between them, Arup Gogoi told him that if necessary, he should be helped to take him to AMCH, Dibrugarh. After staying half an hour, he returned to his house along with Montu and about 10:00 am, Montu left his house. In the day time, he came to know that three persons of Mouzadar family had been killed. In cross-examination conducted by prosecution, this witness has stated that he do not know as to after leaving his house, where Mantu had gone out. He denied the suggestion that he did not go to visit Arup with Montu nor he met Montu on that day. (35) Initiating the argument, learned P. P. has submitted that the evidence of eye witnesses particularly the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4, PW-12 to PW-14 are clear and convincing as to the guilt of the accused persons and there appears no any reason to discard the evidence of these testimony of the witnesses, which suffers from no any sort of omission and contradiction etc. It is also argued that even though some of the witnesses who were declared hostile, but it does not necessarily destroy the credibility of the eye witnesses. (36) On the other hand learned counsels appearing for the accused persons has vehemently argued that the evidence of so called eye witnesses cannot be relied on in view of the fact that they are relative of the deceased persons and there was earlier enmity between the parties for which false implication of the accused persons cannot be denied. It is also argued that evidence of eye witnesses are unnatural as because they made no hue and cry after seeing the occurrence and was simply watching the occurrence. (37) Another point that has been assailed by defence is about the FIR. It has been contended that the formal FIR which was filed subsequently to that of the earlier information given by another person up on which G.D. Entry was made cannot be relied by the Continued to page No. 30. [30] prosecution, as first information report. Learned defence counsel has referred the case laws reported in 2012 (6) GLJ (NOC) 80 Ganimiah and others -Vs- State of Tripura and 2013 (GLJ) 425 State of Tripura and another -Vs- Ashok Bebbarma and another wherein it has been held that when written information received by police officer after starting of investigation on the basis of other information received by police and entered into G.D. register, the said written information cannot be treated as FIR and it shall be treated as informant statement recorded U/S 161 CrPC and the content there of can be used not an FIR, but for the purpose of contradicting informant. Further it has been discussed that such first information to a police officer regarding a cognizable offence, first in point of time which regarded as FIR. Though FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence but it is a valuable piece of evidence as it discloses the version of occurrence at first available opportunity and can be used not only for contradicting informant but in a given case for lending support to prosecution case by way of corroboration. Not mentioning the name of main accused in FIR can be of no consequence. (38) Another thrust of argument of the defence counsel was that as the G. D. entry was not proved by the prosecution so the case cannot be investigated by the I. O. and subsequent FIR Exht. 8 filed by Bhaskar Konwar/PW-6 is nothing but a mere statement. It is also urged that there cannot be another FIR vide Exht. 7 filed by another persons like family member of deceased persons which has made the case doubtful. (39) The evidence of witnesses who have given statement U/S 164 CrPC are also attacked by the defence side on the ground that the statements were given at the behest of the I. O. and it is submitted that such statement has no substantive value. In this context defence has relied upon the case law reported in 2012 (4) GLJ 157 Bijoy Continued to page No. 31. [31]
Medhi -Vs- State of Assam wherein it is held that the statement made U/S 164 CrPC is not a substantive evidence, and the learned Court committed error by relying on the said statement made U/S 164 CrPC where the matter of giving statement not examined. (40) Challenging the reliability of eye witnesses in the present case, reference has been made by the defence side in a case law reported in 2013 (3) GLJ (NOC) 647 State of Meghalaya -Vs- Daniel Shabong and another, it has been pointed out the observation of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court which is as below. “Omission to mention the name of accused persons before the police or neighbours, even on the following day by the eye witnesses couple with the belated disclosure of names of two accused before police make it highly unsafe to place reliance on their evidence”. (41) Lastly it has been urged that the presence of accused persons in the place of occurrence, being the bazar area is natural and not doubtful and the whole prosecution case is defective for improper investigation, for non production of seized articles, non examination of the scribe of the FIR Urmila Konwar is, non supporting of the case by the independent witnesses, the prosecution cannot claim to succeed to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. A decision reported in 2009 GLJ 609 Subodh Debbarma and others –Vs- State of Tripura has been referred where it has been discussed that “the investigating officer did not collect the Postmortem examination report, failed to collect incriminating weapon used by accused and blood stained earth from the place of occurrence, did not examine the witnesses of the locality nor TIP was made and for all such reasons the investigation was held to be defective and as such prosecution was failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt”. Accordingly it is also urged by the learned defence counsel Continued to page No. 32. [32] that in the instant case also due to defective investigation as has been mentioned above the charges are not proved beyond all reasonable doubt and accused persons deserve acquittal.
APPRECIATION BY THE COURT:
(42) Prior to appreciation of argument of the defence side it would be relevant to mention about the defence plea and the evidence adduced thereon. It will be pertinent to mention herewith that the case was pending before the Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Dibrugarh where after recording all the evidences case was fixed for statement of the accused persons, and thereafter as the Court was lying vacant on transfer of the presiding officer, the case was withdrawn to my file on 18.02.2013. (43) Defence examined DW-1 and DW-5 to prove that the accused Bidyut Bikash and Mantu Chowdang were at the Naharani Hospital in connection with treatment of Arup Gogoi (since deceased) at the time of occurrence. But their evidence is not specific as regard the time and date etc. as to when the said accused persons went to the hospital so as to prove conclusively, their absence at the place of occurrence and such vague evidence is of no help. On the next DW-2 Dr. D. N. Bhagabati has stated that accuse Sanat Gogoi was admitted in the said Naharani PHC on 10.04.2003 and discharged on 16.04.2003. But his evidence is also not conclusive that on the day of occurrence if accused was actually present in the hospital at the relevant time of occurrence and because at some time patient left hospital for short period and place of occurrence is not faraway from hospital. There is no pin point evidence regarding his absence at the place of occurrence. On the other hand the evidence of DW-3 though tried to speak about presence of accused Hemanta with him on the day of occurrence, but he also failed to assert convincingly that Continued to page No. 33. [33]
Hemanta was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time of occurrence. Defence evidence so adduced being clumsy and vague, cryptic is not at all sufficient to substantiate the defence plea. (44) While continuing the argument when the learned defence counsel raised the question of non proving of G. D. entry made by the I. O., this Court opted for re-examination of the I. O. to prove such G. D. entry to arrive at a just decision. As the G. D. E. is a matter of record so there is no bar to go through the same. Accordingly on re-examination of the I. O. he proved the G.D.E. register, volume 6 vide Exht. 21 (with effect from 14.04.2003 to 03.05 2003) and Exht. 21 (1) is the relevant G.D.E. No. 250 dated 15.04.2003 and Exht. 21 (2) is his signature. He has further explained that he received the information from one Bubu Konwar on 15.04.2003 at about 12.45 p.m. to the effect that three persons were lying in injured condition in the road of No. 2 Ghurania Gaon but he was not sure that the injured were dead or alive. After getting the information he immediately went to the place of occurrence and subsequently one Sri Bhaskar Konwar filed the written ejahar vide Exht. 8. Thus the I. O. has proved the G.D.E. properly.
LEGAL STATUS OF RELATIVE WITNESS :
(45) The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar -Vs- State of H. P. AIR 2009 SC 1, it has been held that- “There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witness. On the contrary reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses have reason to shield actual culprit and falsely implicated the accused. The credibility of a witness cannot be judge merely on the basis of close relation with the deceased and as such cannot be a Continued to page No. 34. [34] ground to discard the testimony, if it is otherwise inspires confidence”. Regarding the status of related witness, law is settled that close scrutiny is required of such witnesses, and their credibility should be tested having regard to the given facts and circumstances. Merely because the eye witnesses are related to the deceased/injured cannot be a ground to discard the evidence as a whole. In the given case the PW-1 to PW-4 and PW-12 are eye witness to the occurrence. The date of occurrence 15.04.2003 is the day of Bohag Bihu and as per custom in our society people enjoyed the festival in their houses and market etc. remains closed. The defence has given suggestion to the witnesses that the bazar was open on that day and the bazar people having dispute with Bhaskar have killed the deceased persons not the accused which is denied by all the witnesses. Apart from giving mere suggestion to the witnesses defence failed to elicit any thing to prove their plea. In the cross examination defence failed to scattered the evidence so as to discredit the prosecution story. It is to be noted that the PW-1/sister- in-law of deceased, PW-2/daughter of the deceased Tapan Konwar, PW-3/wife of Tapan Konwar, PW-4/wife of deceased Rajib Konwar, PW-12/son of deceased Dilip Konwar were very much present in their hose at the time of occurrence and the place of occurrence was hardly 50/100 meters from their house and hearing hue and cry out side they immediately went out and saw the incident from a little distance and has given a clear picture of the incident. However it cannot be expected that every minute details of such brutal assault upon their father and husband can be elaborated by such witnesses. Particularly the PW-2 being a minor daughter has given evidence implicating all the accused persons though in a short manner but it cannot be rejected on that ground while she has stood the cross examination and confirmed her statement all through. Equally they Continued to page No. 35. [35] have given statement U/S 164 CrPC which tally with the evidence given in course of trial as well as U/S 161 CrPC. As it appears that the defence could not make out any contradiction and omission any of those witnesses so as to shake the veracity. It may be noted that these witnesses are wife, son and daughter of the deceased persons and in their presence deceased were brutally assaulted with deadly weapon resulting instantaneous death of three persons and there appears no any reason as why these witnesses will falsely implicate the accused persons and will scot free the real culprits. I found no any convincing reason to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses. The law is settled that related witness cannot be discarded if they were otherwise found credible and trustworthy and corroborative on material particulars. (46) The submission of the defence side on the point of FIR and G.D. entry as mentioned above are taken together for discussion. In the given case no doubt the matter entered in to G. D. entry can be treated as FIR as it was lodged first in point of time. But the said information disclosed only about lying about three injured persons at the place of occurrence without mentioning of any assailant. The formal FIR was filed by the brother of the deceased persons/PW-6 on the same very day in the evening which was registered by the O/C concerned. As the I. O. already undertaken the investigation on the basis of G.D. entry so the subsequent FIR filed is a mere statement as per Sec 162 CrPC. (47) In view of the challenge by the defence side while in the course of argument about non proving of G. D. entry by the prosecution, this court by invoking the provision of Sec.311 CrPC, re-examine the I.O. who has proved the G. D. entry No. 250 dated 15.04.2003. Now the fact remains that the G. D. entry has been brought on record and the said information in the G.D.E. is simply a massage about the injured persons lying at the place of occurrence Continued to page No. 36. [36] and nothing more. The I. O. went to the place of occurrence immediately after getting the massage and also found the said three injured persons lying at the place mentioned in the G.D.E. who were dead in the mean time. So the authenticity of the G.D.E is beyond question. It is also quite natural on the part of bereaved family of the deceased where three brothers of the same family died in the same incident, to have mental stability to file FIR immediately which has been reflected in this case also. One of the brother of three deceased persons lodged the formal FIR in the evening of the day of occurrence at 7.30 p.m. , while the occurrence took place at 12.30 a.m. Even if the same is not treated as FIR then also the information in the form of statement can be accepted as true version of the case. So I find nothing to discard the said Exht. 1 as well as the G.D.E. No. 250 dated 15.04.2003 as non of them are contradictory of each other, rather conjoint reading of the same revels the same incident. The non examination of the person who gave the information cannot be a lacuna on the part of the prosecution to discard the prosecution case in view of overwhelming evidence on record about death of three deceased persons on the day of occurrence. I found no any substance in the submission of the defence counsel on this aspect that there is no FIR and no ejahar to prove the case.
CREDIBILITY OF EYE WITNESS :
(48) Evidence of eye witnesses has also been assailed by the defence side on the ground that they did not give any information to police immediately after the occurrence by giving the name of the accused persons. It is also contended that their statement given U/S 164 CrPC is nothing but a tutored version of the I. O. so it cannot be relied on. As has been mentioned above, those eye witnesses are the wife and children of the deceased persons and in front of them Continued to page No. 37. [37] ghastly crime has been committed and they helplessly had to see the brutal assault of their husband/father/brother-in-law by lots of people amongst the accused persons and they are unable to resist such huge gathering of accused persons with deadly weapons in their hands. All those deceased persons were dealt with severe assault with Dao, Axe, lathi etc. resulting instantaneous death of three persons. One can assume the mental condition of the witnesses who were certainly under severe mental shock and agony and it is not expected that they will simply went to the police station while everything is over. Further there cannot be minute details of such incidence by naming each and every act of the accused persons as to who has assaulted whom while the accused persons were large in number as many as 15 persons. It is particularly so, that when the eye witness is non other than own family members. If we scrutinize the sequence of the occurrence we will find that PW-1 first arrived at the place of occurrence who followed the deceased who went out with a gun in his hand and then saw the incident on the spot. The PW-2 also arrived after hearing hue and cry outside and saw the whole incident and implicated all the accused persons. The PW-3 followed her husband Tapan who went out after hearing hue and cry outside. Similarly the PW-4 also went out immediately after hearing hue and cry out side and the PW-12/the son of deceased Dilip Konwar, who was a minor at the time of occurrence was playing on the road, also on hearing about the matter went to the place of occurrence as soon as his father went out with a gun and he saw the whole incident. It has also been brought on record that their house is at a little distance from the place of occurrence so their presence thereon in not at all doubtful. Again whenever there is an incident relating to family affairs, the family members will be the first person to react and respond and Continued to page No. 38. [38] even the neighbours try to keep themselves away from such incident in the fear of injury to their life and liberty. The society as a whole turns to a peculiar, complex state of affair where people do not bother for others particularly when the incidence relates to sensitive matters like brutal murder case. The same has been reflected in this case. Though there are so many neighbouring people were examined by the I. O., none of them have claimed to be the eye witness except the finding of three dead bodies at the place of occurrence. However their evidence also has not anywhere support the defence plea that it was not the accused persons but some other market people has killed those three persons. The defence was in a position to elicit the same from the mouth of those witnesses by way of cross examination but it was not done by the defence side. Likely certain other plea of defence that it was a market day with huge gathering of people and out of those bazar people the deceased were assaulted is not proved and it was a mere suggestion. (49) There is no principle of law that without corroboration of independent witnesses, testimony of eye witness cannot be relied upon. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has pronounced in catena of decisions that the mere fact that all the eye witnesses belongs to a family cannot be a reason to disbelieve their evidence since they were all on the spot or near by the spot when the incident occurred (Bhagga -Vs- State of M.P. AIR 2008 SC 175). Merely because eye witnesses are family members their evidence cannot per-se be discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established (Bursing -Vs- State of Punjab AIR 2009 SC 157). Testimony of eye witness cannot be disbelieve when it is tested with cross examination. (YI Patel -Vs- State of Gujatat AIR 2004 SCW 4955). In Rajendra -Vs- State 2010 CLJ 15 (27) (Del) – DB it has been held that “By and large a witness cannot be expected to Continued to page No. 39. [39] posses a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. The testimony of eye witness would not be rejected merely because he could not explain the manner of assault by the accused on the deceased”.
EXISTENCE OF TWO FIR WHETHER DOUBTFUL :
(50) Defence has also urged about having of two FIR Exht. 7 and Exht. 8 which needs to be discussed. In pursuance to the submission I have scrutinized the evidences on record and it is found that PW-7 has stated about the filing of Exht. 7, but the I. O. has denied about receipt of the same. He has only stated about receipt of Exht. 8/ejahar from the PW-6 which however Court has recorded as Exht. 8 (A) in trial. The evidence of I. O. cannot be disbelieved because the Exht. 8 is found to be duly received at the police station on 15.04.2003 which was registered as Tingkhong P.S. Case No. 40/03 U/S 147/148/149/ 302/ 427/435 IPC. But there is nothing to show about receipt of Exht. 7 in the Case Diary. To get the proper picture I have also gone through the G.D.E. register which was called for by this Court at the time of argument vide Exht. 21 to prove the G.D.E. No. 250 dated 15.04.2003. As the G.D.E. register has been exhibited in this case so there is no bar to go through the said register to remove the doubt as regard existence of two FIR Exht. 7 and Exht. 8. Accordingly I have gone through all the G.D.E. Nos. from 250 to 261 dated 15.04.2003 wherein the I. O. has reflected about receipt of information from Bubu konwar and then about his investigation and in the evening at 7.30 p.m. received ejahar from Bhaskar Konwar/PW-6. There is no any reference about receipt of another ejahar from Pradip Gogoi vide Exht. 7. It is also peculiar to note that there is no such receipt no. etc. by the police station at the bottom of overleaf of the same and it is Continued to page No. 40. [40] plain paper. So the submission of the I. O. is found correct that no such FIR was filed before the police station. Why the prosecution exhibited such document which is not a part of case diary or the record is not explained. It is to be noted that the said Exht. 7 dated 25.04.2003 was addressed to the O/C, Tingkhong P.S., copy of which was written to D.C., S.P., MP, MLA etc. and the letter contains long elaboration of the incident and might have send the copy to those persons without submitting copy to the O/C concern. As the evidence of I.O. as well as the G.D.E. register reflects non receipt of Exht. 7, so it can be concluded that apart from Exht. 8, there was no another ejahar vide Exht. 7 before the I. O. as has been challenged by the defence side. (51) To prove the defence plea that bazar people have killed the deceased persons except giving mere suggestion, the defence failed to substantiate the same. No any effective cross examination was made to exploit the veracity of the material witnesses. It is to be seen that after lapse of so many years, and after conclusion of the evidence, the defence came up with other diferrent plea that two of the accused persons Bishnu Gogoi and Chitra Gogoi were minors at the time of occurrence and other accused Bidyut Bikash Gogoi, Sanat Gogoi, Arup Gogoi, Hemanta Gogoi, Mantu Chowdang were not present at the time of occurrence wich was disclosed at the time of giving statement by them U/S 313 CrPC only. As regard the plea of minority about two accused persons on the day of occurrence after findings of inquiry, their case was forwarded to the JJB, Dibrugarh. But as regards the plea of alibi taken by the accused mentioned above cannot be accepted at this belated stage and also in view of the defence evidence which is not itself conclusive as to the fact that those persons were not present at the place of occurrence at the crucial point of time. Their evidence is totally vague and given in a cryptic manner which failed to prove that it was impossible on Continued to page No. 41. [41] the part of the accused persons to be present in the place of occurrence. Further plea of alibi is always is to be taken at the initial stage of the case not at belated stage. The occurrence took place in the year 2003 and while giving statement before this Court in the year 2013/2014 , such plea is being taken up. There is no any whisper at the time of evidence nor any suggestion was given at the time of cross examination regarding such plea. Accordingly I reject the plea of the defence side on this score. (52) The case laws referred by the defence side on the point that evidence of eye witness not believable who did not disclose the name of assailant etc. , not fitted to the instant case as they have given statement to I.O. U/S 161 CrPC, to the Court U/S 164 CrPC and in course of trial has fully implicated all accused persons. Moreover it is not a case of defective investigation nor a case where no independent witness was examined. So all case laws relied by the defence side are not applicable in the instant case. (53) Let us have a overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case before us. There are as many as five eye witnesses, which has been supported by the two official witnesses like M.O. and I.O. As has been discussed above merely because of those eye witnesses are relative of the three deceased persons that cannot be aground to discard their evidence. The witnesses saw the occurrence in the broad day light, there is no any mistaken of fact regarding the identification. It is also quite natural about their presence at the place of occurrence and it will be unnatural on their part if they allowed the real culprits scot free and falsely implicate some other persons. The evidence of those five eye witnesses remains corroborative through out the trial and their statement given U/S 161 CrPc and U/S 164 CrPC remains same. There is no sort of omission and contradiction of these witnesses is proved by the defence side. They have been tested in the cross examination then Continued to page No. 42. [42] how defence can deny the credibility of such witnesses? On the next the defence submission regarding enmity between the parties is a matter of fiction which is not substantiated in any manner. Again the enmity is a double edged weapon. It may be a reason for false implication of a person or it may give incentive to commit the crime. Whatsoever may be the reason it has been proved by the evidence of these eye witnesses that all the present accused persons assembled in fornt of the house of Bhaskar Konwar with Dao, lathi, Axe etc. with a common object to attack and assault the family members of Mauzadar and destroy the property of the informant family which revels from their conduct while they damaged the property of the informant Bhaskar Konwar and also set fire the Ambassador Car of the PW-6. In course of investigation the I. O. has seized the burnt Ambassador Car and some other broken articles from the premises of PW-6. Seizure list is not challenged by the defence side. (54) One another aspect contended by the defence side that prosecution has failed to elucidate any reliable evidence from the sixteen independent witnesses and three other witnesses were declared hostile like PW-16, PW-31 and PW-33. On the pretext it has been submitted that the evidence of related witnesses cannot be the sole basis to arrive at the guilt of accused. But from what has been discussed above I am not agreeable to the submission of defence side. The independent witnesses may not support a case for so many reasons as I have mentioned above. In a case like triple murder case which has created a panic and sensitivity in the locality for which people are afraid of giving evidence and remains silent. But for this reason, the positive evidence of the several eye witnesses cannot be discarded. The findings of M.O. has revels multiple severe cut injuries on the person of the deceased persons, indicating use of heavy sharp weapon. All the attack was on the vital part of the body like head and neck and which revels intention to Continued to page No. 43. [43] cause death of the persons. Thus the medical evidence has fully supported the prosecution case. (55) The other witnesses, PW-7, PW-8, PW-13, PW-14, PW-20 and PW-29 are supportive of prosecution case as they found the accused persons in front of the house of Bhaskar Konwar where from the occurrence started and soon there after at a little distance from the house of Bhaskar Konwar dead body of three brothers of Bhaskar Konwar was found. (56) The submission of the defence that these eye witnesses has given the statement U/S 164 CrPC as tutored by the I. O. is also not acceptable because no any such bias act has been shown which may indicate that the I. O. is otherwise interested in the case. On the other hand also real victim of the case will not come under dictation of I.O. to scot free the real culprit and will name some other person as desired by the I.O. However it is noted that some of the witnesses have narrated the incident in detail whereas others in a short manner, but the facts remains that the eye witnesses have fully implicated all the accused persons and circumstances also supporting their version. The defence side has totally failed to scattered the evidence of these eye witnesses on any material aspect. Mere denial of the case simpliciter unless defence failed to shake the veracity of the witnesses is of no avail. Some minor deviation in the evidence while describing the occurrence is not destructive of prosecution case. Because it cannot be loose sight that the evidence has been given after 3 to 4 years of the occurrence for which the memory may have faded. The occurrence took place on 15.04.2003 and evidence started since 2006 and continues up to 2014. That apart part matter of observation varies from man to man as because mental faculty is not equal to all, one may observe so many aspect of a incident while other may not. But this does not reveals that later person is telling lie. In the instant case there was mob gathering and as many as 15 Continued to page No. 44. [44] accused persons conjointly attacked three persons, armed with deadly weapon and in such sequence it is difficult to describe the incident in a vivid manner as to who assaulted whom with what weapon, particularly when the witnesses are closely relative. Because due to emotion and shock they even failed to absorve so many thing before him. The PW-2 and the PW-12 are the minor children of the deceased persons being students of class V and VI so it cannot be expected that they will be able to give detail description of the occurrence. (57) In view of the findings and discussions above It can be concluded that all the accused persons assembled in front of the house of Bhaskar Konwar with a common object to do certain illegal act like destroy and assault the family members of said Bhaskar Konwar armed with deadly weapon which has renders them liable to be punish U/S 143/148 IPC. They have also destroyed the vehicle and other properties of the informant, value of which is obviously more than Rs. 50/- and as such they have committed mischief as per Sec. 427 IPC. All the accused persons were actuated by common object to assault the three sons of the Muzadar, while some of the accused persons used heavy sharp weapons and other accused persons also took active participation towards achieving the object and which speaks of constructive liability on the part of the accused persons as per Sec 149 IPC. The provision of Sec. 149 IPC makes every member of an unlawful assembly at the time of committing the offence guilty of the offence. The Sec. 149 IPC create vicarious liability for unlawful acts committed pursuant to the common object by any other member of the assembly. The evidence on record clearly make out the formation of such unlawful assembly by the accused persons and for their conjoint brutal assault, three own brothers of the same family died on the spot which has renders all accused persons liable to be punished U/S 302 IPC r/w Sec.149 IPC. Continued to page No. 45. [45]
Accordingly I find and hold all accused persons guilty U/Ss. 143/148/427/302 r/w Sec. 149 IPC. (58) Heard the present 13 Nos. of accused persons on the point of sentence U/S 235 (2) CrPC. They still pleaded innocence and prayed to exonerate as they have family to maintain. Their simple assertion cannot accepted as for their act, three persons lost their lives who left their family behind. Such type of offence in board day light creates adverse impact in the society as such there is no scope to bestow leniency. Accordingly each of the accused persons present today is sentenced U/Ss. 143/148/427 IPC to under go R. I. for 3 months and U/S 302/149 IPC each of the accused persons is sentenced to under go R. I. for life with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. The fine amount if realized shall be deposited in the account of District Legal Services authority, Dibrugarh. Period of detention if any, shall be set off. (59) Seized articles be destroyed in due course of law. (60) Bail bond stands canceled. (61) Send a copy of judgment to the Secretary, DLSA, Dibrugarh. (62) Furnish a free copy of judgment to each of the accused persons. (63) Delivered under my hand and seal of this Court on this the 6th day of June, 2014. Dictated and corrected by me:- Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh
Continued to page No. 46. [46]
APPENDIX:
List of witnesses:
(1)P.W. 1 Smti. Ranjani Konwar; (2)P.W. 2 Smti. Tapaswini Konwar; (3)P.W. 3 Smti. Jyoti Konwar; (4)P.W. 4 Mrs. Anjumoni Konwar; (5)P.W. 5 Smti. Rohila Konwar; (6)P.W. 6 Sri Bhaskar Konwar; (7)P.W. 7 Sri Pradip Konwar; (8)P.W. 8 Sri Saurabh Konwar; (9)P.W. 9 Sri Bhabani Gogoi;
(10) P.W. Sri Chandan Gogoi;
(11) P.W. Sri Prasanta Gogoi;
(12) P.W. 12 Sri Kalyanmoy Konwar;
(13) P.W. 13 Smti. Sukonya Konwar;
(14) P.W. 14 Sri Chinmoy Konwar;
(15) P.W. 15 Sri Ramesh Gogoi ;
(16) P.W. 16 Sri Bipin Chandra Gogoi;
(17) P.W. 17 Sri Kanak Konwar;
(18) P.W. Sri Muleswar Chowdary; (19)P.W. 19 Sri Bulu Dutta;
(20) P.W. 20 Sri Khagen Gandhia Phukan;
(21) P.W. 21 Sri Sasanka Baruah;
(22) P.W. 22 Sri Bisheswar Dihingia;
(23) P.W. 23 Sri Jogen Gogoi;
(24) P.W. 24 Sri Mrinal Gogoi;
(25) P.W. 25 Sri Pronab Jyoti Konwar;
(26) P.W. 26 Sri Jatin Gogoi;
(27) P.W. 27 Dr. B.C. Roy Medhi (The M.O.)
(28) P.W. 28 SI Ranjit Moran; (The I.O.) Continued to page No. 47. [47]
(29) P.W. 29 Smti. Bhabani Konwar;
(30) P.W. 30 Sri Tileswar Gogoi;
(31) P.W. 31 Sri Ratul Gogoi;
(32) P.W. Sri Dibakor Gogoi @ Dulal; and
(33) P.W. 33 Sri Sukheswar Gogoi.
List of Exhibits: (1)Ext. 1 Statement of Smti. Ranjoni Konwar recorded under Section 164 CrPC; (2)Ext. 2 Statement of Smti. Tapaswini Konwar recorded under Section 164 CrPC; (3)Ext. 3 Statement of Smti. Jyoti Konwar recorded under Section 164 CrPC; (4)Ext. 4 Statement of Smti. Anjumoni Konwar recorded under Section 164 CrPC; (5)Ext. 5 Statement of Smti. Rohila Konwar recorded under Section 164 CrPC; (6)Ext. 6 Statement of Sri Bhaskar Konwar recorded under Section 164 CrPC; (7)Ext. 7 Document (8)Ext. 8 Ejahar (9)Ext. 9, Ext. 10 & Ext. 11 -- Inquest Report.
(10) Ext. 12, Ext. 13 & Ext. 14 -- Seizure List.
(11) Ext. 15, Ext. 16 & Ext. 17 -- Postmortem Report
(12) Exht. 18 -- Charge Sheet.
List of witnesses:
(1) DW-1/Sri Tirtha Gogoi;
(2) DW-2/Dr. Dhirendra Nath Bhangthai;
(3) DW-3/Sri Sunil Gogoi;
(4) DW-4/Sri Promod Chandra Bhatacharyya; and Continued to page No. 48. [48]
(5) DW-5/Sri Lakhindra Konwar.
Exhibits for defence:
(1) Exht. A and Exht B – Register of Naharani PHC
(2) Exht. C -- School Leaving Certificate of Bishnu Gogoi
(3) Exht. D – Admission Register of Konwari Gaon High School.
Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh