Gauhati High Court
The State Of Assam vs Sanjay Rajowar on 30 July, 2025
Author: S.K. Medhi
Bench: S.K. Medhi
Page No.# 1/97
GAHC010007962021
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Death Sentence Ref./2/2020
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY PP
ASSAM.
VERSUS
SANJAY RAJOWAR
S/O. LATE BABU RAJOWAR
R/O. TEOK T.E. TEOK
DIST. JORHAT
ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM
Advocate for : MR. K N CHOUDHURY
AMICUS CURIAE appearing for SANJAY RAJOWAR
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. MEDHI
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG
Page No.# 2/97
Date of hearing : 18.03.2025,
Date of judgment : 30.07.2025
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
(Marli Vankung, J)
Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae, Ms. S.
Jahan learned Addl. PP and Mr. M.K. Das for the informant. Also heard Shri S Borthakur,
learned counsel for the convict. This is a reference made for the confirmation on the order to
suffer death sentence by the Sessions Judge, Jorhat, Assam dated 12.10.2020 in Session
Case No. 157(J-T)/19 (GR Case No. 3191/90) on the conviction of Sh. Sanjoy Rajowar under
sections 302 IPC and 302/149/342/353/148/149 IPC r/w Section 4 of the AMSP and MSI Act,
2011.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 31.08.2019 at 10:10 PM, one Sh. Manoj Gogoi,
Senior Manager of Teok Tea Estate, Jorhat, Assam lodged a First Information Report before
the Officer-in-charge, Teok Police Station, Jorhat to the effect that on 31.08.2019 the Doctor
of the hospital/dispensary of the Teok Tea Estate was killed by a mob. As per the FIR lodged
by Sh. Manoj Gogoi, Senior Manager of Teok Tea Estate at around 2:35 PM, one Samra Majhi
(30) S/o Late Jagan Majhi of Major Line of Teok Tea Estate slipped in the bathroom and
received head injury. At around 3:15 PM, he was brought to Teok Tea Estate Hospital by 6 to
7 persons. When he was brought to the hospital, the dresser on duty Sh. Subhash Rajowar
rushed on his bike to bring the nurse Smt. Ranjula Hazarika Bora to the hospital. When she
arrived at the hospital, she immediately informed the Medical Officer, Dr. Deben Dutta over
phone and as per the direction of the Medical Officer, the nurse administered one Dexona
Injection. Soon, the Medical Officer of the hospital Sh. Deben Dutta arrived at the hospital
and started treatment with nebulizer on the patient. By then a mob of around 40 persons
gathered at the hospital creating ruckus. They assaulted and threatened Mr. Maresh Robidas,
Chowkidar of the hospital who tried to pacify the mob. The mob threatened Ranjula Hazarika
Page No.# 3/97
Bora, nurse at the hospital and also restrained Sh. Subhash Rajowar, dresser of the hospital
from protecting the Doctor who was being subjected to brutal assault by the mob. The mob
confined Dr. Deben Dutta in a room and started brutally assaulting him with fists and blows
with wooden leg of a table and sharp glass blades extracted by breaking the windows of the
hospital. The Doctor started bleeding profusely. The Welfare Officer of the Teok Tea Estate,
Mr. Jibon Kurmi, Sh. Mukhyajyoti Barua, Asst. Manager and Sh. Manoj Gogoi, Manager soon
reached the hospital. The crowd had grown to 200 to 250 persons. The mob continued to
engage in damage and destruction of the hospital property and continued to assault Dr.
Deben Dutta. On receiving information, the police from Teok Police Station had reached the
spot but the police were outnumbered and could not do their duty. No heed was paid to the
Executive Magistrate who could not perform his duty to maintain law and order. The
Ambulance was called for; however, the mob did not allow access to the Ambulance. After
reinforcement of the police Sh. Samara Majhi and Dr. Deben Dutta were shifted to the Jorhat
Medical College and Hospital. Dr. Deben Dutta was declared brought dead at the hospital.
3. Due to the brutal physical assault by the unlawful mob, serious injuries by giving fists
and blows, assault with wooden leg of the table and injuries through sharp glass blades taken
from the window, Dr. Deben Dutta died. The names of the person who allegedly caused the
death of Dr. Deben Dutta were listed in the FIR which consists of 30 persons. The FIR was
accordingly registered with Teok Police Case No. 434/2019 under Section
302/341/342/427/506/143/144/147/148 r/w Section 149/186 IPC r/w Section 4 of the Assam
Medical Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and
Damage to Property) Act, 2011.
4. It is also seen that prior to the receipt of the FIR, the O.C Teok Police Station received
information of the incident over phone and recorded one GD Entry No. 526 dated 31.08.2019
at around 4:08 PM.
5. During investigation, the case I.O. visited the place of occurrence and examined the
witnesses. The case I.O. also got the statement of 7 (seven) witnesses recorded under
Page No.# 4/97
Section 164 CrPC. The case I.O. made a prayer before the Court under Clause 7(e) of the
Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 for protection of these 7 (seven) witnesses by concealing
the identity as the witnesses received threat to their lives and the same was allowed by the
Court. The case I.O. got the inquest and autopsy on the dead body of Dr. Deben Dutta
conducted at JMCH. He also sent the viscera of Dr. Deben Dutta collected during the autopsy
for chemical examination at Forensic Science Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as FSL)
Kahilipara, Guwahati. He also took photographs in the place of occurrence and seized some
broken glasses lying scattered at the P.O and also seized one chair used by Dr. Deben Dutta,
which was sent to the FSL. The report of the above was then collected. The case I.O.
arrested the accused persons and forwarded them to the Court, wherein Test Identification
Parade (TIP) of the accused persons was done. The finger print of one accused namely,
Sanjoy Rajowar was done along with the broken glass piece with chance finger prints. The
same was sent for examination at FSL, Kahilipar, Guwahati. The required records were
received and on completion of the investigation, the case I.O. found well established the case
under Section 302/341/342/427/506/186/143/ 144/147/148/149/109 of IPC r/w Section 4 of
the AMSP & MSI Act. Accordingly, the Chargesheet No. 203/2019 dated 22.09.2019 was filed
against the 32 accused persons, 30 accused persons were named in the FIR and names of
two accused persons were added during investigation. Accordingly, all the accused persons
were produced before the Trial Court, wherein charges were framed against all the accused
persons which was read and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed
for trial.
6. In order to bring home the charges against the accused persons, the prosecution
examined as many as 56 prosecution witnesses including the Medical Officer and the case
I.O. and also exhibited as many as 89 documents and 126 materials exhibit. After closing the
prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 CrPC in which
they pleaded innocence. The stand of the accused persons was that of total denial. However,
no evidence was adduced in defence. The prosecution side had re-examined PW Nos. 33 &
37 after closing of the prosecution evidence to which the defence declined further cross
Page No.# 5/97
examination.
7. Thereafter, on 08.09.2020, additional charge under Section 302 IPC was framed and
another charge under Section 186/149 IPC was altered to Section 353/149 IPC. On framing
charge, the accused persons pleaded not guilty of the charge under Section 302 IPC r/w
Section 353/149 IPC.
8. The learned Trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution
witnesses and after hearing the arguments submitted by the learned counsels, passed in the
Judgment & Order dated 12.10.2020 and convicted the Sri Sanjoy Rajowar under Section 302
IPC and under 302/353/342/148/149 IPC and section 4 of AMSP & MSI Act. On his conviction
under section 302 IPC, he was sentenced to death by directing that he shall be hanged by
neck till death and imposed a fine of Rs. 500/-.
9. The evidence adduced before the learned trial Court is briefly highlighted herein under:
10. PW-1/Soumen Kundu deposed to the effect that on August 31.08.2019, around 4
p.m., he went to Teok Tea Estate Factory. While entering the tea factory, he received
information from the gate chowkidar that some chaos was going on in the tea Garden
Hospital. Thereafter, he went inside the tea factory when one of the office staffs, Sri Ajay @
Bapi, informed him that the Doctor had been assaulted. Before reaching the hospital, he saw
a huge crowd covering the road in front of the hospital. He found police and BSF personnel
present, and the mob chanting slogans in Assamese language that “this Doctor should die
and we will not let him go”. Entering the Doctor’s chamber, he found a police personnel
pressing on the Doctor’s right thigh with a towel and there was blood all over the floor. Dr.
Deben Dutta was brutally assaulted and was in a subconscious state, with his right eye
blacked out while his hands were hanging on both sides. The Doctor recognized him and said
that his femoral artery had been cut. He then asked his office staff Shri Debojyoti Barua to
call the 108 Ambulance, however the mob obstructed the Ambulance, and soon after the
CRPF arrived, and the mob was moved back down and Dr. Dutta was taken to Jorhat Medical
College & Hospital in a police vehicle. He later learned that Dr. Deben Dutta succumbed to his
Page No.# 6/97
injuries.
When he returned from Thana, he saw the accused Sri Manoj Majhi outside the
chamber, addressing 8/10 people, few of them recording the events, and he was addressing
that the Doctor should have been removed long before by the management and that they
have given application to the Manager to remove him. But to his knowledge, they have not
received any such application.
In the mob, he identified accused persons, including Sri Kalanag Majhi, Sri Ratul
Rajowar @ Hasim, Sri Kartik Bhumij, and Sri Sanju Majhi, who had obstructed the Ambulance
from taking the Doctor to the hospital for medical treatment. Other accused persons were
identified by the other staff and Estate management from video footage as well as from the
staff present during the assault.
A seizure list was prepared in presence of him and Sri Kalyanjit Bora. Exhibit-1 is the
seizure-list and Exhibit-1 [1], Exhibit-1 [2], Exhibit-1 [3], Exhibit-1 [4] and Exhibit-1 [5] are
his signatures. Vide Exhibit-1 [seizure-list], 30 [thirty] numbers of articles were seized by the
investigating officer which he had identified.
In his cross-examination, he had stated that although he identified the four accused
persons, other than Sri Manoj Majhi, he did not know their names, during the police
investigation, he did not have the opportunity to identify those accused persons. He admitted
that he did not state before the police that accused Sri Manoj Majhi was outside the chamber,
addressing 8/10 people. He also did not state that Sri Manoj Gogoi and Sri Mukta Jyoti Barua
were confined inside the Doctor’s chamber, but rather that they were inside the chamber. He
did not mention that they were restrained from using mobile phones. Additionally, he did not
state that the mob was chanting in Assamese language after he returned from the Thana. He
did not state before the police about the police personnel pressing a towel on Dr. Deben
Dutta’s right thigh or the Doctor’s statement about his femoral artery being cut. He confirmed
stating the name Sri Debojyoti Barua for calling the Ambulance but had mentioned calling
Page No.# 7/97
office staff. He also did not mention the names of Sri Kalanag Majhi, Sri Ratul Rajowar @
Hasim, Sri Kartik Bhumij, and Sri Sanju Majhi before the police, whom he had seen that day
in the Court present in the mob. That he had not stated that these four accused persons
present in the mob shutting the door of the Ambulance, but that they had banged the door.
11. PW-2/Kailyanjeet Borah had deposed to the effect that on 31.08.2019, around 4
p.m., he was at his office chamber located at the Factory Campus, Teok Tea Estate. Upon
reaching the hospital, he saw a gathering of about 150-200 people shouting and rioting. He
noticed Sri Jibon Kurmi, Welfare Officer of Teok T.E., visibly shaken and bleeding from right
elbow. Deciding not to enter, he attempted to inform the police. Someone informed him that
the police had already been notified.
12. PW-3/Manoj Gogoi had deposed that the incident occurred on 31.08.2019, around 4
p.m. At that time, he was present at his official house/quarter when he received a call from
Sri Debojyoti Baruah, office staff, informing him about a problem at the Garden Hospital and
that Dr. Deben Dutta had been assaulted. He rushed to the Garden Hospital, a mob of around
40 people were creating a ruckus in the hospital premises. He proceeded to the Doctor’s
chamber, where the mob started attacking Dr. Deben Dutta. He tried to protect the Doctor
and pleaded with the mob to stop, but they continued their assault on the Doctor with fists
and blows and kicks. He noticed that Dr. Deben Dutta was bleeding profusely from his left
thigh. It was then that one of the security personnel with a Saline bottle pipe as a tourniquet,
in the cut portion of the thigh to tie and stop the bleeding. Finally, after much effort, the
authorities managed to rescue Dr. Deben Dutta and the dead body of Samra Majhi. Later on,
they came to know that the patient Samra Majhi had got injured in the toilet of his home and
was brought to the Garden Hospital at around 3.15 p.m. Then the hospital dresser Sri Subash
Rajowar immediately informed the nurse Smt. Ranjula Bora, who went immediately and
attended the patient. She called up the Doctor, i.e., Dr. Deben Dutta, through her mobile
phone, who advised her to give the patient a ‘Dexona’ injection. Dr. Deben Dutta arrived soon
after and tried to treat the patient Samra Majhi in the Nebulizer room where he subsequently
Page No.# 8/97
he died. Then a crowd of about 40 people illegally entered the Garden Hospital and
threatened the hospital chowkidar, Sri Suresh Robidas and also threatened the nurse, Smt.
Ranjula Bora and stopped the hospital dresser, Sri Subhash Rajowar from trying to protect the
Doctor. Dr. Deben Dutta was taken to Jorhat Medical College & Hospital, where he was
declared dead. He identified the accused persons namely [1] Sri Ajay Majhi @ Tutu, [2] Sri
Manoj Majhi, [3] Sri Anil Majhi, [4] Sri Dipak Rajowar, [5] Sri Debeswar Rajowar @ Deba, [6]
Sri Suresh Rajowar, [7] Sri Debeswar Rajowar, [8] Sri Sanjib Rajowar, [9] Sri Sanjay Rajowar,
[10] Sri Rinku Majhi, [11] Sri Bolin Rajowar and [12] Sri Sanju Majhi. The names of other
accused persons he learnt from his office staff, as well as seeing the video clippings. He
lodged an ejahar (Exhibit-2) and was present during the inquest over Dr. Deben Dutta’s dead
body (Exhibit-3). He later learned that the incident was related to the death of Samra Majhi.
In his cross examination, he had stated that he did mention the names of the
accused persons in the ejahar. He did not state before the police the names of other accused
persons which he learned from his office staff and video clippings, as the police did not ask
him. The accused persons he identified in Court, he knew them by their faces but not by their
names. From WhatsApp and video clippings taken by one person, whose name he did not
want to disclose due to security reasons, he came to know about the involvement of the
accused persons named in the ejahar. In Exhibit-2 [ejahar], he did not mention the names of
accused persons namely Sri Kalanag Majhi and Sri Manoj Majhi. He clearly saw accused
persons namely Sri Sanjay Rajowar, Sri Sanjib Rajowar, Sri Suresh Rajowar, and Sri Arun Majhi
assaulting Dr. Deben Dutta on the relevant day. When he reached the Garden Hospital, the
hospital staff were not there as they were chased away by the mob. He did not state before
the police that his Assistants had named the thirty accused persons. He further denied not
stating before police that Dr. Deben Dutta, other than fist blows and kicks, was also assaulted
by broken glass pieces. He also described the Doctor’s chamber, stating it was approximately
15 x 15 feet in size with a table, chair, and tool. He denied that the ejahar was not genuine or
that he falsely mentioned the names of accused persons.
Page No.# 9/97
13. PW-4/Bhaskar Jyoti Rajbongshi had deposed to the effect that on 31.08.2019, he
was at Teok Revenue Circle as Circle Officer and Law & Order Magistrate. Around 4:35 p.m.,
he received a call from the District Special Branch, one Sh. Handique informing him about a
violent situation at Teok Tea Garden Hospital. He then went to the hospital himself, reaching
around 4:50 p.m. He saw a violent crowd of about 250-300, including women, men and
young boys and entering the hospital through the back door of the hospital. Inside, he saw a
dead body later identified as Samra Majhi and Dr. Deben Dutta, who was sitting on a chair on
a pool of blood, seriously injured on his right thigh and bleeding profusely. Police personnel
were trying to stop the crowd from entering the room. Despite his efforts to pacify the crowd,
they did not respond. As the Doctor needed urgent medical attention, a plan was made to
take Dr. Dutta to an Ambulance, but the crowd, mostly women, prevented it. He was told by
the police personnel that they had earlier chased away an Ambulance. He then, requested the
Superintendent of Police, Jorhat, to send the Quick Response Team, alongwith available
forces in the surrounding Police Station, and more police personnel arrived around 5:15 to
5:20 p.m. With the additional police force, they managed to take Dr. Dutta and the dead body
of Samra Majhi to Jorhat Medical College & Hospital. The crowd was dispersed, and a flag
march was conducted in the Labour Lines of Teok Tea Estate for area domination. Later on,
Senior police officials arrived at the spot and they started investigation.
14. PW-5/Sarangapani Saikia had deposed that the incident occurred on 31.08.2019.
On that day, around 4 p.m., he received a call from his colleague reporter, Sri Rupak Jyoti
Borah, informing him about an incident at Teok Tea Garden Hospital. He then informed
another colleague reporter, Sri Utpal Jyoti Khound, about the incident and asked him to
accompany him.
He also notified the Officer-in-Charge of Teok Police Station about the incident.
Thereafter, he, along with Sri Rupak Jyoti Borah and Sri Utpal Jyoti Khound, went to Teok Tea
Garden Hospital. Upon reaching the hospital, he received a phone call from his wife, who was
in an advanced stage, requesting him to pick her up from college. So, after dropping off his
Page No.# 10/97
colleagues, he left the spot immediately.
15. PW-6/ Robi Mahali had deposed that the incident occurred around three months
prior on a Saturday. On the day of the incident, he left the hospital around 2 p.m. due to his
maternal uncle’s passing. He did not have any personal knowledge about the incident.
Cross-examination was declined by the defence.
16. PW-7/Nohan Mahali had deposed that the incident occurred on 31.08.2019. He
worked as the driver of the Ambulance at Teok Tea Garden. On that day, around 4 p.m., he
returned to Teok Tea Garden Hospital with a patient after medical treatment at Teok Civil
Hospital. Upon reaching the hospital, he heard a commotion inside the hospital room and saw
a gathering outside. Due to concerns for the patient’s safety and potential damage to the
Ambulance, he took the patient home to Hatkhola Line, Teok T.E. Then, he took the
Ambulance to the tea garden factory.
17. PW-8/Dhirah Mahali deposed that the incident occurred on 31.08.2019, a Saturday.
He worked as a Male Attendant at Teok Tea Garden Hospital.
On that day, around 3:15 p.m., he arrived at the hospital for his duty and saw a
patient, Samra Majhi, being given water by his wife. The hospital dresser, Sri Subhash
Rajowar, was attending to other patients, and Smt. Ranjula Hazarika Borah, a GNM nurse,
was on OPD duty. When Dr. Deben Dutta arrived at the hospital, he went to his chamber.
Shortly after, a commotion erupted inside Dr. Dutta’s room. He stated that accused Sri Dipak
Rajowar threatened him to leave the area, and he identified several accused persons,
numbering about 15 (fifteen), who were present by the side of near Samra Majhi, in an angry
mood, waiting for Dr. Dutta’s arrival. He could recognize and identify accused persons namely
[1] Sri Debeswar Rajowar, Son of Late Samlal Rajowar, [2] Sri Bablu Rajowar, [3] Sri Dipak
Rajowar, [4] Sri Rinku Majhi @ Batu and [5] Sri Milan Rajowar, who were present inside the
room where Samra Majhi was kept for treatment, who were in very high temper/angry mood
waiting for the arrival of Dr. Deben Dutta.
Page No.# 11/97
The room where he and the nurse were stationed was bolted from the outside, and
he was confined. He managed to escape around 4:45 p.m. and left the area out of fear. At
around 6 p.m., he returned to his house, and came to know about the death of Dr. Deben
Dutta from television.
During cross-examination, he stated that he did not mention certain details to the
police, including the threat by Sri Dipak Rajowar and the names of the accused persons, as
the police did not ask him, and he was under tremendous fear. He stated that he did not
mention to the police that the individuals numbering about 15 (fifteen), who were present by
the side of near Samra Majhi, were in a high-tempered and angry mood, waiting for Dr.
Deben Dutta’s arrival, as the police did not ask him. He also stated that did not mention that
the room where he and the GNM nurse were present was bolted from the outside and
blocked with a bench, again because the police did not ask.
18. PW-9/Khanindra Nath deposed to the effect that the incident occurred on
31.08.2025, around 4:05 p.m. He received a direction from the Officer-in-Charge, Sri
Dipankar Gogoi, to proceed to Teok Tea Estate due to an incident. Upon arrival, he saw a
huge gathering outside the Tea Garden Hospital and around 30-40 people inside Dr. Deben
Dutta’s chamber, assaulting him. He and his team intervened, and he saw Dr. Dutta bleeding
profusely from the right thigh. In order to stop the bleeding, Sri Kamal Das accompanied him
with a saline pipe and tied the wound. Outside the hospital, the persons who were present
were shouting and threatened to kill the Doctor.
To provide immediate treatment to Dr. Deben Dutta, he, along with his staff, tried to
take the injured out of the room through the backside of the hospital. However, they were
prevented from doing so as they were gheraowed by the gathering. In the meantime, Sri
Dipankar Gogoi, the Officer-in-Charge of Teok P.S., arrived with additional police force and
they managed to take Dr. Dutta and the dead body of Samra Majhi to Jorhat Medical College
& Hospital through the backside of the hospital.
During cross-examination, he had stated that he did not know the names of the
Page No.# 12/97
accused persons he had identified, except for Sri Manoj Majhi, whom he knew as a member
of AATTSA. He had not mentioned earlier that he could recognize the accused persons if he
saw them. He also could not recognize and identify accused Sri Rinku Bakti. He knew accused
Sri Sanjay Rajowar because the latter had tried to assault him on the day of the incident.
However, he had not mentioned this detail to the Investigating Officer.
He stated that he did not specifically mention to the Investigating Officer that the
gathering was giving fist blows and kicks to Dr. Deben Dutta, but he had mentioned that the
Doctor was assaulted by the gathering. He denied that he had not witnessed the incident of
assault on Dr. Deben Dutta by the accused persons.
19. PW-10/Debasish Boruah deposed that the incident occurred on 31.08.2019 when
he was serving as a constable at Teok P.S. On that day, around 4:10 p.m., he alongwith Sri
Ghanakanta Mili accompanied S.I. Sri Khanindra Nath to Teok Tea Estate due to an incident.
They proceeded to Teok Tea Estate in a police vehicle driven by Sri Aditya Saw. Upon arrival,
they saw a huge gathering of about 200-300 people outside the tea Garden Hospital. Hearing
a commotion, he and the others, except Sri Aditya Saw, entered the hospital, where Dr.
Deben Dutta was being assaulted by about 30-40 miscreants. He tried to prevent the crowd
from entering the room. He identified several accused persons, including Sri Sibcharan
Mahali, Sri Upendra Bhumiz, and others, who were assaulting Dr. Deben Dutta. Sri Sanjay
Rajowar was particularly aggressive. The police managed to chase out the assailants, but the
crowd outside was threatening to kill Dr. Deben Dutta. More police force arrived, and they
took Dr. Deben Dutta and the dead body of Samra Majhi to Jorhat Medical College & Hospital.
During cross-examination, he stated that he had not identified the accused persons
before and had not mentioned certain details to the Investigating Officer. He knew Sri Sanjay
Rajowar from the incident due to his aggressive behavior and took lead in assaulting the
Doctor. He stated that he did not mention to the Investigating Officer that he could recognize
the accused persons if he saw them, as he was not asked. He knew accused Sri Sanjay
Rajowar from the incident, noting that he was more aggressive and led the assault on Dr.
Page No.# 13/97
Deben Dutta. However, he did not mention this detail to the Investigating Officer. He also did
not state earlier that he saw the accused persons assaulting Dr. Deben Dutta. He had seen
about 30-40 people assaulting Dr. Deben Dutta and also described the room, 15 x 15 feet in
size, where the incident occurred and denied that he had not witnessed the assault.
20. PW-11/Ghanakanta Mili deposed that the incident occurred on 31.08.2019 when
he was serving as an AB Constable at Teok P.S. On that day, around 4:10 p.m., Sri Khanindra
Nath, S.I. [P], asked him and UBC Constable Sri Debasish Boruah to accompany him to Teok
Tea Estate due to an incident. Along the way, they encountered a mobile patrolling party of
BSF personnel with Constable Sri Kamal Das, whom they took with them. Upon arrival, they
saw a huge gathering of about 250-300 people outside the Tea Garden Hospital. Hearing a
commotion, he and the others, except Sri Aditya Saw, entered the hospital, where Dr. Deben
Dutta was being assaulted by about 60/70 miscreants. The police tried to rescue Dr. Dutta,
but the crowd attempted to assault them physically. With additional police staff, they
managed to move the crowd out of the Doctor’s room. Later, the Officer-in-Charge Sri
Dipankar Gogoi arrived with more police force, and they took Dr. Deben Dutta and a dead
body to Jorhat Medical College & Hospital. Though the 108 Ambulance arrived, it was chased
away by the crowd. He later went to the Jorhat Medical College & Hospital where he learnt
that Dr. Deben Dutta was declared dead.
He identified three accused persons, including Sri Bijay Rajowar, Sri Manoj Majhi, and
Sri Rinku Majhi, who were assaulting Dr. Deben Dutta. Sri Rinku Majhi allegedly scratched his
forehead when he intervened.
During cross-examination, he stated that he had not identified the accused persons
before. He stated that he knew Sri Bijay Rajowar from before the incident but denied
mentioning certain details to the Investigating Officer, including the crowd’s attempt to
assault the police and Sri Rinku Majhi scratching his forehead when he intervened and that he
took treatment for the scratch caused by the accused Sri Rinku Majhi. He denied that he had
not witnessed the incident.
Page No.# 14/97
21. PW-12/Nareswar Robidas deposed that the incident occurred on 31.08.2019 when
he was serving as Chowkidar of Teok Tea Garden Hospital.
Around 3:20 p.m., he saw a patient being carried to the hospital on a handcart
(Thela), accompanied by about 6-7 members. They inquired about the hospital staff, and he
informed them that hospital dresser Sri Subhash Rajowar was present. He then informed Sri
Subhash Rajowar about the patient, who asked them to come inside. The patient was made
to lie on a bed in the dressing room. Sri Subhash Rajowar went to inform the hospital nurse
Smt. Ranjula Hazarika Borah and returned to the hospital. About five minutes later, Smt.
Ranjula Hazarika Borah arrived at the hospital. He couldn’t say what the nurse did with the
patient as he was outside the hospital.
About 10-15 minutes later, Dr. Deben Dutta arrived at the tea Garden Hospital. As
soon as Dr. Dutta arrived, the 6-7 persons accompanying the patient started questioning him
about his tardiness and raised a commotion. Dr. Dutta examined the patient and found him to
be already dead. The family members started raising a hue and cry, and Dr. Dutta tried to
leave the hospital. However, accused Sri Manoj Majhi, who is a member of AATTSA arrived
and took Dr. Dutta to his chair, he told him he could not go and asked to call the Garden
Manager, so the Doctor asked the dresser, Sri Subhash Rajowar to call the Garden Manager.
After Manoj Majhi left the room, a group of about 30-40 persons gathered outside the
hospital and started assaulting the Welfare Officer. On seeing the assault taking place, he
stated that he bolted the door to the room where Dr. Dutta was sitting, but the crowd banged
on the door and asked him to open it. Inside the room, he alongwith Dr. Dutta and a few
women accompanying patient were present. When he opened the door, the crowd rushed in
and tried to assault Dr. Dutta. He stated that he tried to save Dr. Dutta but was slapped and
threatened, and forced to go out of the room.
When he came out of Dr. Deben Dutta’s room, he saw accused Manoj Majhi standing
outside, waiting for the Garden Manager. The crowd grew larger, and when the Garden
Manager arrived and entered Dr. Dutta’s room, the crowd including Manoj Majhi rushed in,
Page No.# 15/97
and then an outcry followed.
He recognized several accused persons entering the room, including 1. Sri Sanjay
Rajowar, 2. Sri Sanjib Rajowar, 3. Sri xxx Rajowar 4. Sri Ajay Majhi 5. Sri Debeswar Rajowar
s/o Late Samlal Rajowar 6. Sri Arjun Majhi 7. Sri Dipak Rajowar 8. Sri Hari Majhi 9. Sri Pinku
Majhu & 10. Sri Manoj Majhi. Someone was video recording the incident on their mobile
phone.
After some time, the police arrived but initially couldn’t disperse the crowd. An
Ambulance was also chased away. Later, with more police force, they dispersed the crowd,
and Dr. Deben Dutta and the dead body were taken out through the back door.
He didn’t know where Dr. Dutta was taken for medical treatment. Later, at home, he
learned that Dr. Deben Dutta died.
During cross-examination, he stated that dresser Subhash Rajowar returned to the
hospital after summoning the Garden Manager but left again from the gate. He learned about
this later from Subhash Rajowar himself.
22. PW-13/Nurtaz Ali deposed that the incident occurred on 31.08.2019. He was
serving as S.I. of Police at Lahdoigarh O.P. under Teok P.S. Around 4:40 p.m., the Officer-in-
Charge of Teok P.S. directed him to go to Teok Tea Garden Hospital due to a violent situation.
On reaching the hospital, they saw a gathering of about 250-300 people outside, creating a
commotion. He accompanied the Officer-in-Charge to Dr. Deben Dutta’s chamber, where they
found Dr. Dutta in a sub-conscious state severely injured in the room filled with blood. He
also saw broken glass panes of windows and doors lying in the room.
Despite calling the 108 Ambulance, it was not allowed to enter. So, they brought Dr.
Deben Dutta and a dead body to their police vehicle.
As per direction, he took Dr. Deben Dutta and the dead body to Jorhat Medical
College & Hospital with three other police staff namely Sri Gautam Barua (UBC), Sri Debasish
Baruah (UBC) and Sri Mridul Bora (Homeguard) and the driver, Sonar. Dr. Deben Dutta was
Page No.# 16/97
declare dead dead, and an Executive Magistrate held the inquest, and the dead bodies of Dr.
Deben Dutta & and Samra Majhi were taken to the morgue for post-mortem examination. He
seized Dr. Deben Dutta’s clothes before the examination.
Exhibit-4 is the seizure-list and Exhibit-4 [1] is his signature. Exhibit-4 [2] is the
signature of Dr. Kanak Chandra Das of Jorhat Medical College & Hospital given in his
presence. Said Doctor produced the seized clothes of Dr. Deben Dutta to him before carrying
out post-mortem examination. He identified the seized articles as follows:
Dead body of Dr. Deben Dutta was handed over to him after conducting post-mortem
examination and thereafter, he handed over the same to the relatives of the deceased.
Exhibit-5 is the Cadaver Report Form. Exhibit-5 [1] is his signature.
Viscera of Dr. Deben Dutta were preserved by the Doctor of Jorhat Medical College &
Hospital for chemical examination and report.
In cross-examination nothing pertinent about the incident was asked.
23. PW-14/Apurba Kalita deposed that the incident occurred on 31.08.2019. He was
serving as A.S.I. of Police at Teok P.S. On that day, he went to Jagdowar for investigation
purposes. Around 4-5 p.m., the Officer-in-Charge directed him to go to Teok Tea Garden
Hospital due to a violent situation. Upon arrival, they saw a gathering of about 250-300
people outside, creating a commotion. He and the security personnel prevented the crowd
from entering the hospital room. When they went inside, he found Dr. Deben Dutta sitting in
his chair, his right thigh tied with a saline pipe to block the blood oozing out of the wound,
below his chair was a pool of blood. He also saw broken glass pieces of doors and windows.
Later, Officer-in-Charge Sri Dipankar Gogoi arrived with security personnel. Despite
calling the 108 Ambulance, it was not allowed to enter. S.I. Md. Nurtaz Ali took the injured Dr.
Deben Dutta and a dead body to Jorhat Medical College & Hospital in a police vehicle. Later,
he learned that Dr. Deben Dutta died at the hospital.
During cross-examination, he stated that he did not know the circumstances of Dr.
Page No.# 17/97
Deben Dutta’s injuries.
24. PW-15/Keshab Mohan had deposed that the incident occurred on 31.08.2019. He
was serving as S.I. of Police at Teok P.S. On that day, he proceeded to the hospital with 8 BSF
personnel and found a gathering of about 250-300 people creating a commotion. He and the
security personnel cleared the verandah and tried to pacify the crowd. Later, S.I. Md. Nurtaz
Ali and Officer-in-Charge, Teok P.S. Sri Dipankar Gogoi arrived. While he controlled the crowd
at the front, Md. Nurtaz Ali and the Officer-in-Charge, Teok P.S. brought out Dr. Deben Dutta
and a dead body through the back door, and they were taken to Jorhat Medical College &
Hospital. Later, he learned over the phone that Dr. Deben Dutta died at the hospital.
Cross-examination was declined by the defence.
25. PW-16/ Ashok Sonar deposed that the incident occurred on 31.08.2019 when he
was working as the driver of a police vehicle at Lahdoigarh O.P. under Teok P.S.
In the afternoon, Md. Nurtaz Ali, S.I., Ladoigarh, O.P. asked him to take him to Teok
Tea Garden Hospital. He drove the police vehicle bearing registration No. AS-30/5026 (Bolero
Invader) carrying Md. Nurtaz Ali and a BSF party, to the hospital.
Later, he moved the vehicle to the backside of the hospital as directed by the police
personnel already present. A dead body was loaded into the vehicle, and then Dr. Deben
Dutta, who was severely injured, was taken aboard.
He transported Dr. Deben Dutta, the dead body, and several police personnel,
including S.I. Md. Nurtaz Ali, Gautam Baruah (UBC) and Debasish Baruah (UBC), and Mridul
Bora (Homeguard), to Jorhat Medical College & Hospital.
Cross-examination was declined by the defence.
26. PW-17/Mridul Borah deposed that the incident occurred on 31.08.2019 when he
was working as a Homeguard at Teok P.S. Upon arrival, at the Teok tea Garden Hospital they
Page No.# 18/97
saw a gathering of about 200-250 people outside, creating a commotion. An Ambulance
arrived but was chased away from the area.
He and the other security personnel entered the hospital room, where they found Dr.
Deben Dutta sitting on his chair with injuries and a pool of blood below. He also saw pieces of
broken glasses of doors and windows lying scattered in the room.
They took the injured Dr. Deben Dutta from the room through the backside of the
hospital to Jorhat Medical College & Hospital for medical treatment alongwith a dead body.
He learnt that Dr. Deben Dutta died at Jorhat Medical College & Hospital. He stated that
accused Sanjay Rajowar and Bolin Rajowar prevented him from taking Dr. Deben Dutta out of
his room.
During cross-examination, he stated that he could not recognize the accused persons
in Court. He heard the names of Sanjay and Bolin from others during the incident. He did not
name the accused persons earlier to the police as he was not asked.
27. PW-18/Robi Rajak had deposed that the incident occurred on 31.08.2019. Upon
arrival at the Teok Tea Garden Hospital, they saw a gathering of about 200-250 people
outside, creating a commotion. Inside, they found Dr. Deben Dutta sitting on his chair with
injuries on his right thigh, and a pool of blood under his chair. After other police officials,
including the Officer-in-Charge of Teok P.S. arrived, they took the injured Dr. Deben Dutta and
a dead body from the room through the backside of the hospital to Jorhat Medical College &
Hospital for medical treatment. Later, he learned that Dr. Deben Dutta died at Jorhat Medical
College & Hospital.
Cross-examination was declined by the defence.
28. PW-19/Diganta Kalita deposed that the incident occurred on 31.08.2019 when
he was a Constable at Teok Police Station. While he was at the police station, S.I.
Khanindra Nath called him on the phone and told that an incident occurred at Teok tea
Garden Hospital and asked him to go there with other police officers. At the police station,
UBC Gautam Baruah and Sentry UBC Ashinta Khanikar were there, as others were working
Page No.# 19/97
on NRC duty. So, he left Ashinta Khanikar at the police station. He, along with Gautam
Baruah and two other BSF personnel, went to Teok tea Garden Hospital. On reaching
there, they saw outside on the road, a huge gathering of about 200/250 persons trying to
enter into the tea Garden Hospital and creating an outcry.
He entered into the hospital through the backside and went into the room where he saw
Dr. Deben Dutta sitting on his chair with injuries on his right thigh and below the chair of
Dr. Deben Dutta, was a pool of blood. He also saw ABC Kamal Das with a saline pipe tying
the wounded portion of Dr. Deben Dutta in order to prevent oozing of blood. He also saw
pieces of glasses of doors and windows lying scattered on the floor of the room. When he
entered into the room there were about 30 to 40 persons. Though they tried to take out
Dr. Deben Dutta out of the room, they were prevented from doing so by the
mob. Subsequently, on arrival of Officer-in-charge, Teok P.S. and more police force, they
could manage to take out injured Dr. Deben Dutta and one dead body of Samra Majhi into
the police vehicle and from there to Jorhat Medical College & Hospital through the
backside of the hospital. Later on, he came to know that Dr. Deben Dutta died at Jorhat
Medical College & Hospital.
He could recognize and identify specifically accused persons, namely, Sri Guludev
Majhi and Sri Siba Mahali, who at the time of incident by using filthy and obscene words,
threatened him and other police personnel present there with dire consequences. They
also pushed them in order to enter into the room of Dr. Deben Dutta.
29. PW-20/Gautam Baruah had deposed to the effect that incident occurred on
31.08.2019. On reaching there, they saw a huge gathering of about 250/300 persons creating
noise and hue & cry and also trying to enter into the room by using force, where Dr. Deben
Dutta was present.
As they were prevented from entering through the front door by the rampaging crowd, he
and Sri Diganta Kalita could manage to enter into the hospital through the backside and went
into the room where he saw Dr. Deben Dutta sitting on his chair with blood injuries on his
right thigh and below the chair of Dr. Deben Dutta, there was a pool of blood. He also saw, at
that time, ABC Kamal Das with a saline pipe tying the wounded portion of Dr. Deben Dutta in
order to prevent oozing of blood from the wound. He also saw pieces of glasses of doors and
windows lying scattered in the room of Dr. Deben Dutta. Though they tried to take out Dr.
Deben Dutta out of the room, they were prevented from doing so by the gathering of the
crowd. Subsequently, on arrival of Officer-in-charge, Teok P.S., and more police force, they
managed to take out injured Dr. Deben Dutta and one dead body of one Majhi from the
room, through the backside of the hospital into the police vehicle and from there to Jorhat
Medical College & Hospital.
Later on, he came to know that Dr. Deben Dutta died at Jorhat Medical College & Hospital.
During cross examination, he denied that he did not state before the police about
presence of about 30 to 40 persons the room of Dr. Deben Dutta when he entered there and
Page No.# 20/97
about seeing pieces of glass of doors and windows lying scattered in the floor of the room of
Dr. Deben Dutta.
30. PW-21/Bubul Handique deposed to the effect that the incident occurred on
31.08.2019. On that day, he was working as U.B Constable in DSB Branch of Teok P.S. Around
4/4.30 p.m., on receiving information that some incident had taken place at Teok tea Garden
Hospital, he alongwith A.S.I. Tarun Sarma of DSB Branch, went there in a motorcycle.
On reaching there, they saw a huge gathering of crowd creating noise and hue & cry. He also
saw Dr. Deben Dutta being taken in a police vehicle to Jorhat Medical College & Hospital for
medical treatment. Later on, here turned back to Teok P.S. and came to know that Dr. Deben
Dutta died at Jorhat Medical College & Hospital.
Cross-examination was declined by the defence.
31. PW-22/Atanu Goswami deposed that the incident occurred on 31.08.2019. He was
working as Technician of 108 Ambulance. Around 4.51 p.m., from Head-office of 108
Ambulance, in Guwahati, he was informed over telephone of the incident of assault had taken
place at Teok tea Garden Hospital. Immediately, he along with driver of 108 Ambulance
Sri Padma Kanta Saikia, rushed to the spot from Teok P.S. and reached Teok tea Garden
Hospital at 4.56 p.m. They took the Ambulance near the hospital and as soon as he
opened the door, about 200 persons came near the Ambulance and threatened them to
damage the vehicle if they take out the patient from the aforesaid hospital. Some of the
persons in the crowd, closed the door of the Ambulance and asked them to take out the
Ambulance away, else situation won’t be good. Finding no way out, and seeing the mood of
the crowd, they brought back the Ambulance from the spot.
Cross-examination was declined by the defence.
32. PW-23/Aditya Kumar Soh deposed that the incident occurred on 31.08.2019 when
he was working as Driver (Lance Nayak) at Teok Police Station. Around 4.10 p.m., he was at
Teok P.S. and from his vehicle, he heard a loud shout and the gathering creating hue & cry.
During cross examination, he could not recognize any of the members of the crowd
at the time of the incident.
33. PW-24/Bikash Gowala deposed that the incident occurred on 31.08.2019. Out of
Page No.# 21/97
fear of his life, instead of going to his official quarter, which is situated by the side of Teok tea
Garden Hospital, he went towards Mariani in his motorcycle. Later on, he learnt from my
elder brother Sri Dinesh Gowala that Dr. Deben Dutta had died.
34. PW-25/Subhash Rajowar deposed that the incident occurred on 31.08.2019 when
he was working as Dresser at Teok Tea Garden Hospital. Around 3 p.m., he came to Teok Tea
Garden Hospital for his duty. While he was busy dressing other patients, Sri Milan Rajowar
and Sri Dipak Rajowar by lifting one patient namely, Samra Majhi, brought inside the hospital.
They brought the patient in a handcart. Seeing blood oozing out of the nose and mouth of
Samra Majhi, he immediately rushed to the official quarter of Smt. Ranjula Hazarika Borah,
GNM nurse, of Teok Tea Garden Hospital and at that time it was around 3.20 p.m. He
informed her about the condition of the patient, i.e., Samra Majhi, who in turn informed Dr.
Deben Dutta about the condition of the patient. Accordingly, Dr. Deben Dutta advised Smt.
Ranjula Hazarika Borah to check the blood pressure of the patient, i.e., Samra Majhi, and to
give one Dexona injection to him. Smt. Ranjula Hazarika Borah, GNM Nurse, came to the
hospital immediately and gave one Dexona injection to the patient i.e., Samra Majhi. Around
3.55 p.m., Dr. Deben Dutta arrived at the hospital and after examining the patient, advised to
give another dose of Dexona injection to the patient, i.e., Samra Majhi. Thereafter, he advised
him to nebulize the patient and accordingly, he did so. Further, the Doctor also advised him to
prepare one Saline to be given to the patient. While he was nebulizing the patient, Dr. Deben
Dutta was standing by his side, and he heard hue & cry outside the Garden Hospital. So, Dr.
Deben Dutta advised him to call the Garden Manager. Accordingly, he went to call the Garden
Manager, thereafter, when he returned from the office of the Garden Manager, he saw a huge
gathering and Sri Jibon Kurmi, Garden Welfare Officer of Teok Tea Estate, being assaulted by
the gathering, and from the crowd, he could see that the members of the gathering were
assaulting the hospital staff, so he went back to his house out of fear.
He did not know who were assaulting the hospital staff inside the hospital. Later on, he heard
that Dr. Deben Dutta was also assaulted, due to which he succumbed to his injuries.
During cross examination, he had stated that as he was inside doing his duty, so he
cannot say about the presence of these accused persons at the relevant time.
35. PW-26/Ranjula Hazarika Borah deposed that the incident occurred on 31.08.2019
when he was working as Staff Nurse at Teok Tea Garden Hospital. Around 3 p.m., while he
was preparing himself to go to his work place, i.e., Teok Tea Garden Hospital, Sri Subash
Rajowar, Dresser of their Tea Garden Hospital, came to his official quarter and informed him
that one serious patient has been brought to the hospital. Immediately, he rushed to the
Garden Hospital and checked his pulse, blood pressure and heart beat. As he failed to detect
pulse, blood pressure and heart beat of the patient, he rang up Dr. Deben Dutta and informed
about the patient and advised him to give him one Dexona injection. Accordingly, he gave
one Dexona injection to the patient, whose name was Samra Majhi. After giving the injection,
Page No.# 22/97
he again informed Dr. Deben Dutta about the health condition of the patient.
Then Dr. Deben Dutta came to the Garden Hospital immediately and again advised him to
give another dose of Dexona injection to the patient, i.e., Samra Majhi. Accordingly, he gave
one more Dexona injection to the patient. Thereafter, Dr. Deben Dutta himself was nebulising
the patient. While they were treating the patient, there were about 8/9 attendants present
inside the Garden Hospital and they were shouting and abusing Dr. Deben Dutta. By this
time, Dr. Deben Dutta also advised him to get one Saline ready to be given to the
patient. The persons/attendants who were present inside the Garden Hospital by the side of
the patient, started pushing Dr. Deben Dutta hard and in doing so, they were preventing the
Doctor from giving proper treatment to the patient.
Thereafter, when he came out to attend some other patient at O.P.D. of their hospital, he saw
a huge gathering outside the hospital creating hue & cry and raising loud shout. While he was
at O.P.D., he saw a huge crowd entering into the chamber of Dr.Deben Dutta and also, he
heard breaking of glass panes of doors and windows as well as hue & cry of the crowd.
Though he made attempt to go to the chamber of Dr. Deben Dutta, he was prevented to go
there. Out of fear of his life, he left the hospital and came back to his official quarter.
Later on, he heard that Dr. Deben Dutta had died at Jorhat Medical College & Hospital
due to assault inflicted upon him.
36. PW-27/Tarun Sarmah deposed that the incident occurred on 31.08.2019 when he
was working as A.S.I. of police, DSB Branch, Teok P.S.
He was performing his official duty at Teok P.S. when around 4/4.30 p.m., he received
information that some incident had taken place at Teok Tea Garden Hospital, so he along with
Constable Bubul Handique of DSB Branch, Teok P.S., went there in a motorcycle. Then around
5.20/5.25 p.m., he saw Dr. Deben Dutta being taken out from inside the Garden Hospital
chamber and he was taken to hospital in police vehicle. Later on, on the same day, around 8
p.m., he came to know that Dr. Deben Dutta died at Jorhat Medical College & Hospital.
37. PW-28/Mukta Jyoti Baruah deposed to the effect that the incident occurred on
31.08.2019. On that day, due to some personal work, he went to Jorhat and returned to Tea
Estate around 3.30/3.45 p.m. When he was in his official Bunglow, around 4.08 p.m., he
received a call from their Estate Manager Sri Manoj Gogoi and asked him to go to Teok Tea
Garden Hospital immediately. Accordingly, he rushed to the Garden Hospital and reached the
hospital around 4.20 p.m. Upon reaching there, he saw 50 to 60 people outside the Garden
Hospital shouting. Then he went inside the chamber of Dr. Deben Dutta. He saw 30 to 40
persons present inside the room, surrounding Dr. Deben Dutta and Sri Manoj Gogoi, the
Manager of the tea estate and those persons creating noise and hue & cry. Sri Manoj Gogoi
was trying to pacify the persons present inside the Doctor’s chamber, but no one was
listening to him. After 3/4 minutes, more people entered into the Doctor’s chamber through
Page No.# 23/97
both front and back doors of the chamber. Seeing the rush of more people inside the Doctor’s
chamber, so, he along with one staff named Prakash Rajowar, blocked the back door of the
chamber in order to prevent further entry of other people inside the chamber. Suddenly, more
people came inside the Doctor’s chamber and they, along with the 30/40 persons who were
already present inside the chamber, started assaulting Dr. Deben Dutta by pushing away Sri
Manoj Gogoi. In the meantime, someone called police and after 15 to 20 minutes, 4 to 5
police personnel came to Teok Tea Garden Hospital. When police entered into the Doctor’s
chamber, the mob present inside the Doctor’s chamber became more violent. They pushed 2
to 3 police personnel and they also stopped the police personnel from doing their duty. After
few minutes more police force came in and Circle Officer also arrived. With presence of more
police personnel, they could vacate the Doctor’s chamber by moving out the crowd.
By that time, the condition of Dr. Deben Dutta was very bad as he was punched in his face.
He also noticed blood on the floor just below his chair where he was sitting. One police officer
folded his trouser which he was wearing and then he could see one cut mark on right thigh of
Dr. Deben Dutta, wherefrom blood was oozing out. In order to stop bleeding from the cut
portion of Dr. Deben Dutta, one police staff with the help of a saline pipe, tied the cut portion.
Then Sri Manoj Gogoi went outside and requested the crowd to allow them to take Dr. Deben
Dutta for medical attention, but no one listened to him, rather they were shouting that Dr.
Deben Dutta has to die there. After few minutes, more police force came to Teok Tea Garden
Hospital and with the help of Circle Officer; they could finally mange to take out Dr. Deben
Dutta through the back door of the chamber and then he was taken in a police vehicle. Dr.
Deben Dutta, along with dead body of Samra Majhi was taken in the police vehicle.
Before taking Dr. Deben Dutta in the police vehicle, one 108 Ambulance arrived at the Garden
Hospital but the crowd/mob did not allow the Ambulance to come inside. With the help of few
staffs, namely Sri Prakash Rajowar, Sri Jibon Kurmi, Welfare Officer, and dresser Sri Subhas
Rajowar as well as other staff, he gathered the names of the persons present in the
mob. Later on, he learnt from Sri Manoj Gogoi, Manager that Dr. Deben Dutta had expired.
Then around 9:00 to 9.15 p.m., Sri Manoj Gogoi came back to his office at Teok Tea Garden
from Jorhat. By that time, he has already drafted one F.I.R. as per the instruction of Sri Manoj
Gogoi, Manager, and after rectifying the same by Sri Manoj Gogoi, he put his signature
thereupon as informant. Thereafter, he went to Teok Police Station and submitted the F.I.R.
there, signed by Sri Manoj Gogoi. Exhibit-2 is the said F.I.R. which he has seen in the Court
that day.
In the F.I.R. drafted by him, he has named 30 persons. Accused persons [32 numbers],
who were present in the Court, were all present at the time of the incident. Out of them, he
could recognize and identify the accused persons namely, Sri Sanjoy Rajowar, Son of Late
Babu Rajowar, Sri Ajay Majhi, Sri Dipak Rajowar, Sri Suresh Rajowar, Sri DebeswarRajowar,
Son of Late Jogeswar Rajowar, and he saw them assaulting Dr. Deben Dutta. Other than
these accused persons, Sri Misilal Majhi @ Jabra and Sri Sanju Majhi were also present inside
the Doctor’s chamber, and he saw them shouting and raising hue & cry, but he did not see
them assaulting Dr. Deben Dutta. Rest of the accused persons were also present inside the
Page No.# 24/97
Doctor’s chamber engaging in pushing and shoving and raising hue & cry. On enquiry from
his official staff and few workers as well as from Sri Soumen Kundu, he came to know that
the whole incident had taken place due to instigation by accused Sri Manoj Majhi who was
AATTSA member. He also came to know that it was accused Manoj Majhi, who compelled Dr.
Deben Dutta to be seated at his chamber, preventing him from coming out.
During cross examination, he had stated that he did not state before the police that
he had drafted the F.I.R. as per the instruction of Sri Manoj Gogoi, Manager, and after
rectifying the same by Sri Manoj Gogoi, he put his signature thereupon as informant and then
he went to Teok Police Station to submit the F.I.R. there. He further stated that he has been
working at Teok Tea Estate for last 6 [six] months. He did not name the accused persons,
namely Sri Sanjoy Rajowar, Son of Late Babu Rajowar, Sri Ajay Majhi, Sri Dipak Rajowar, Sri
Suresh Rajowar, Sri DebeswarRajowar, Son of Late JogeswarRajowar, about assaulting Dr.
Deben Dutta by them specifically, but he has stated about assaulting of Dr. Deben Dutta by
the persons present inside the Doctor’s chamber. He also did not name Sri Sanju Majhi and
Sri Misilal @ Jabra, before the police, about their shouting and raising hue & cry
specifically. He also denied stating before the police about other accused persons raising
shouts and hue & cry and indulged in pushing and shoving inside the Doctor’s chamber at the
time of the incident.
38. PW-29/Rajib Gogoi deposed to the effect that on 31.08.2019, he was working as
Circle Officer, Jorhat [West]. While he was at his office, A.D.C., Jorhat, Sri Subhan Gowala,
called him to D.C. Office, Jorhat, and when he reached there, he was directed to carry out
one inquest at Jorhat Medical College & Hospital.
Accordingly, he went to Jorhat Medical College & Hospital, and held inquest over the dead
body of Dr. Deben Dutta in presence of witnesses on 31.08.2019, at 8.36 p.m. Upon inquest
over the dead body of Dr. Deben Dutta, he found one cut injury over the head, light injury on
right eye and the stomach was swelling. He also found one cut injury over the right thigh of
Dr. Deben Dutta. As per police report/opinion, the death of Dr. Deben Dutta was due to public
assault.
Accordingly, he submitted his Inquest Report vide Exhibit-3 and Exhibit-3 [2] is his signature.
Cross-examination was declined by the defence.
39. PW-30/Debo Jyoti Baruah had deposed to the effect that on 31.08.2019, incident
took place. Around 4 p.m., while he was at his office alongwith other staff, he was informed
that an incident involving Dr. Deben Dutta had taken place at the Tea Garden Hospital. He
Page No.# 25/97
went to Jorhat Medical College & Hospital, and in his presence, the Executive Magistrate,
Jorhat, held inquest over the dead body of Dr. Deben Dutta. Exhibit-3 is the Inquest Report
wherein Exhibit-3 [3] is his signature as witness.
Cross-examination was declined by the defence.
40. PW-31/Padma Kanta Saikia deposed to the effect that on 31.08.2019, while he
was working as the driver of a 108 Ambulance, he was informed from their office in Guwahati
at 4:52 p.m. Sri Atanu Goswami, who works as a technician in his Ambulance, was told that
an injury incident had occurred at Teok Tea Garden Hospital.
By the time they arrived, there was a large gathering of about 250 to 300 people. The mob
did not allow them to take any patient in their 108 Ambulance. The mob closed the doors of
the Ambulance and threatened them to leave. The mob also told them that they would not
allow them to take Dr. Deben Dutta for treatment and they were chased out.
Cross-examination was declined by the defence.
41. PW-32/Manoj Das had deposed to the effect that he left his house to go for tea at a
tea-stall in Teok Bagan Tini-Ali. On the way, he noticed a large crowd in front of the Teok Tea
Garden Hospital. He went to the hospital and saw some people in the crowd pushing and
pulling the Welfare Officer. Among these people, he identified Sri Suresh Rajowar pushing and
pulling the Welfare Officer whom he saw in the Court that day. He had tried to stop the
people who were pushing and pulling the Welfare Officer.
At that time, hearing shouting from inside the Doctor’s room, he went there and saw Dr.
Deben Dutta surrounded by about 60 to 70 people. These people were shouting and saying
that the Doctor should be thrashed. Among the people in the Doctor’s room, he could identify
Sri Hari Majhi, Sri Dipak Rajowar, Sri Milan Rajowar, Sri Arjun Majhi, Sri Ramesh Bhumiz, Sri
Taklu Rajowar @ Sanjoy Rajowar, Sri Kartik Bhumiz, and Sri Deba Rajowar also known as
Debeswar Rajowar. They were shouting that the Doctor should be thrashed and assualted. He
had seen the accused persons in the Court that day. Meanwhile, some members of the group
inside the Doctor’s room started assaulting Dr. Deben Dutta by giving blows. He could identify
Sri Ajay Majhi, Sri Upendra Bhumiz, Sri Kalicharan Mahali, Sri Bijay Rajowar, Sri Kalanag
Majhi, Sri Siba Mahali, Sri Suresh Rajowar, and Sri Sanjib Rajowar and he saw hem giving
blows to Dr. Deben Dutta. The accused Sri Siba Mahali kicked the Doctor from the front. He
has seen the accused persons in the Court that day.
He had also deposed that, himself, the Deputy Manager and Sri Manoj Gogoi, the Bor
Manager, had tried to stop the people from thrashing/assaulting Dr. Deben Dutta, but they
were unsuccessful as they did not listen to them. After about 10 to 15 minutes, when the
police arrived, those people became more excited and started breaking the glass panes of the
doors and windows of the Tea Garden Hospital by giving blows and kicks. Among them, he
saw and identified Sri Sanjoy Rajowar, son of the late Babu Rajowar, Sri Ratul Rajowar, and
Sri Rinku Majhi breaking the glass panes of the doors and windows by giving blows, and in
the process, all of them sustained cut injuries on their hands. Furthermore, he saw and
Page No.# 26/97
identified Sri Bablu Rajowar, Sri Sivcharan Mahali, and Sri Rahul Rajowar were pulling and
pushing the police personnel. He recognized all these named accused individuals in Court. He
saw Dr. Deben Dutta bleeding profusely from his thigh and also saw injuries on his face.
When more police officers arrived, the situation was brought under control. The police took
the injured Dr. Deben Dutta and the dead body of Samra Majhi in a vehicle to the hospital.
He had also deposed that inside the Doctor’s room during the incident, he also saw
accused persons namely, Sri Sanju Majhi, Sri Bolin Rajowar, Sri Gulu Dev Majhi, Sri Arun
Majhi, Sri Pritam Majhi @ Saikia, Sri Anil Majhi, Sri Rinku Bakti, and Sri Misilal Majhi @ Jabra.
He saw these individuals standing inside the Doctor’s room. Among them, Sri Arun Majhi, Sri
Pritam Majhi @ Saikia, and Sri Anil Majhi accompanied Samra Majhi. He has seen these
accused individuals in Court. He learned over the telephone that Dr. Deben Dutta had died at
the hospital.
He had deposed that the police had recorded his statement and also his statement was
recorded before the learned Court at Jorhat, where he put his thumb impression.
On cross examination, he had stated that he has not disclosed his real name and
addresses because he was protected under the Witness Protection Scheme. He knew the
accused persons prior to the incident. He stated that in his statement before the police as
well as before the Court he did not mention the presence of 60 to 70 people in the Doctor’s
room. He stated that the persons and staff whom he had named before the Court that day at
the time of the incident, he noticed them only as he was witnessing the incident where a
large number of persons were present. He stated that he could identify the accused persons
whom he named in the Court that day at the time of the incident. He denied all the other
suggestions made to him in the cross examination.
42. PW-33/Kanak Chandra Das had deposed to the effect that he was working as a
Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, JMCH, and Police Surgeon,
Jorhat, at Jorhat Medical College & Hospital. On that day, around 9:30 p.m., he, along with
Dr. Ved Prakash Gupta and Dr. Swaraj Phukan, both Demonstrators in the Department of
Forensic Medicine at Jorhat Medical College & Hospital, performed the post-mortem
examination on the dead body of Dr. Deben Dutta in reference to Teok P.S. G. D. Entry No.
526 dated August 31, 2019. The dead body was identified by UBC/28 Sri Debasish Baruah.
During the post-mortem examination, the following findings were noted:
Male dead body of average built, pale wearing a half shirt, white ganjee and a half
Page No.# 27/97pant, his garments were stained with blood & dust. Dead body was cold externally and
internally at the time of examination. Both eyes & mouth were closed. Rigor-mortis was fully
developed all over the body. Penis, anus and scrotum were healthy.
INJURY:-
a. Stab injury of size 4 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep was present over the medial aspect of
right thigh, situated 13 cm above the upper border of patella, 23 cm below the syphilis pubis
and 5 cm medial to mid-thigh line, having clean cut margins and clotted blood were found
adherent at the wound margins which were resistant to washing with water. On
dissection, it was found that the weapon passes through (track of the injury) through the
skin, sub- coetaneous tissue, vastus medialis, adductor longus and femoral artery
partially cut and separated.
b. Contusion of size 5 cm x 4 cm x soft tissue deep was present over the right side of
face, just lateral to right eye (red in colour).
c. Contusion of size 5 cm x 3 cm x soft tissue deep was present over the left side of face,
just lateral to left eye (red in colour).
d. Contusion on the scalp, size 3 cm x 2 cm over the forehead. Contusion of size 4 cm x 3
cm over the right parietal region. Contusion of size 3 cm x 2 cm over frontal-parietal
region. Contusion of size 3 cm x 2 cm over the parietal- occipital region. (All contusions
present on the scalp were red in color).
e. Contusion of size 6 cm x 5 cm was present on front of the chest, upper part, left
side. Underneath 3rd & 4th ribs were found fractured with surrounding soft tissue
contusion. Other organs were found healthy &pale.
Marks of Ligature Mark on Neck- No ligature mark detected at the time of examination.
Neck organs were found healthy.
Scalp, Skull & Vertebrae
Scalp- as described. Vertebrae-healthy. Skull bone healthy.
Membrane- Membranes were found healthy & pale. Brain – healthy & pale.
Spinal cord -Not examined.
Heart-Healthy, pale, chambers were empty.
Pluera, Larynx & Trachea, Right Lung, Left Lung and Pericardium – healthy & pale.
Abdonimal Organs -Wall – healthy. Peritoneum – healthy & pale.
Mouth, Pharynx & Oesophagus – healthy & pale.
Stomach & Its Contents – Stomach was found healthy and pale.
Contains digested food particles.
Large Intestine & Its Contents – Healthy, pale. Contains gases & faeces.
Liver, Spleen, Kidneys & Bladders – were found healthy & pale.
Organs Of Generation, External & Internal – all were found healthy.
During the time of post-mortem examination, following the visceras preserved
were handed over to escorting constable in a sealed, labelled and signed container with the
request to be sent to State Forensic Science Laboratory, Kahilipara, Guwahati maked as
Page No.# 28/97Jar No. 1, Jar No. 2, Jar No. 3 and
Vial No-1:- Contains 2 ml of blood in sodium fluoride preservative.
Vial No-2:- Contains 5 ml of blood in EDTA vial.
During the time of post-mortem examination, video recording was done. After the
completion of post-mortem examination, video cassette was properly packed, sealed
and labelled and handed over to escorting constable UBC/28 Sri Debasish Baruah of Teok P.S.
for necessary. Post- mortem examination was done during night time as per order from
District Magistrate, Jorhat, vide Order No. JMJ.18/2017/A, dated Jorhat 31.08.2019.
Opinion regarding cause of death – Death was due to shock & haemorrhage
following the injuries sustained as described which were ante-mortem and homicidal in
nature. Injury No. (a) was caused by sharp cutting pointed weapon and Injury No (b), (c),
(d) & (e) were caused by blunt weapon. However, viscera and blood were preserved for
chemical analysis. Approximate time since death – 6 to 12 hours.
Accordingly, post-mortem report was prepared. Exhibit-6 is the post-mortem
examination report wherein Exhibit-6 (1) & Exhibit-6 (2) are his signatures and Exhibit-6
(3) is the signature of Dr. Ved Prakash Gupta. Exhibit-6 (4), Exhibit-6 (5), Exhibit-6 (6),
Exhibit-6 (7) & Exhibit- 6 (8) are the signatures of Dr. Swaraj Phukan.
After receiving the viscera and blood analysis report from State Forensic Science
Laboratory, Kahilipara, Guwahati, we have give the final opinion as to the cause of death of
late Dr. Deben Dutta, which was referred from Teok P.S. G.D. No. 526 dated 31/08/2019,
which was later on registered as Teok P.S. CaseNo. 434/2019 under Section
302/341/342/427/506/143/144/148 of IPC read with Section 149/186 ofIPC read with
Section 4 of TAMSP & SI Act, 2011.
Final Opinion – death was due to shock & haemorrhage following the injuries
sustained as described which were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.
Injury No (a) was caused by sharp cutting pointed weapon and Injury No. (b) to (e) were
caused by blunt weapon. Approximate time since death was 6-12 hours.
Viscera analysis:- Report No. DFS 483/4620/TOX-742/2019 dated 16/09/2019 which states
no poison was detected in the Exhibit Nos. Tox 742/2019 (a) Tox 742/2019 (b) Tox
742/2019 (c).
Exhibit-7 is the Final Opinion Report. Exhibit-7 (1) is his signature and Exhibit-7 (2) is the
signature of Dr. Swaraj Phukan.
After completion of post-mortem examination over the dead body of Dr. Deben Dutta,
clothes which he was wearing at that time, were removed & handed over to the escorting
police constable alongwith the dead body. Police seized those clothes in Exhibit-4 (seizure-
list), Exhibit-4 [2] is his signature. He identified the seized articles which are the
clothes worn by the Doctor; Material Exhibit-31 to Material Exhibit-34.
Viscera of Dr. Deben Dutta were preserved in plastic constainers & vials and handed over
to escorting police constable Sri Debasish Baruah with a request to sent it to State
Forensic Science Laboratory, Kahilipara, Guwhati, for necessary investigation. Exhibit-8 is
Page No.# 29/97
the seizure-list by which visceras were seized, wherein Exhibit-8 (1) & Exhibit-8 (2) are
his signatures.
During cross-examination, he stated that injury No. (a) was caused by sharp cutting
pointed weapon and same cannot be sustained falling from a hard object.
Re-examination of PW-33 at the instance of prosecution side. He deposed that in the post
mortem report, there were 05(5) numbers of injuries on the body of Dr. Deben Dutta which
are as follows:-
Injury:-
a. Stab injury of size 4 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep was present over the medial aspect
of right thigh, situated 13 cm above the upper border of patella, 23 cm below the
symphysis pubis and 5 cm medial to mid-thigh line, having clean cut margins and
clotted blood were found adherent at the wound margins which were resistant to
washing with water. On dissection, it was found that the weapon passes through (track
of the injury) through the skin, sub-cutaneous tissue, vastus medialis, adductor longus
and femoral artery partially cut and separated.
b. Contusion of size 5 cm x 4 cm x soft tissue deep was present over the right side of
face, just lateral to right eye (red in colour).
c. Contusion of size 5 cm x 3 cm x soft tissue deep was present over the left side of
face, just lateral to left eye (red in colour).
d. Contusion on the scalp, size 3 cm x 2 cm over the forehead. Contusion of size 4 cm
x 3 cm over the right parietal region. Contusion of size 3 cm x 2 cm over fronto-
parietal region. Contusion of size 3 cm x 2 cm over the parieto-occipital region.
(All contusions present on the scalp were red in colour).
e. Contusion of size 6 cm x 5 cm was present on front of the chest, upper part, left
side. Underneath 3rd & 4th ribs were found fractured with surrounding soft tissue
contusion.
Injury No. (a) is responsible for massive haemorrhage and may be solely responsible
for causing death of a person in natural course of time. Injury No. (a) may be caused
by Material Exhibit-21.
Injury No. (b) & Injury No. (c) can be caused by Material Exhibit-4.
Injury No. (d) were caused by blunt force impact and may be caused by Material
Exhibit-4.
Injury No. (e) was caused by blunt weapon.
There was no record of haemorrhage from Injury No. (e) in the post- mortem report.
This type of injury can be caused by administering leg blow.
Injury No. (a) may be solely responsible for cause of death of Dr. Deben Dutta and the
other injuries also have cumulative effect of death of Dr. Deben Dutta.
Cross -examination was declined.
43. PW-34/Adish Balmiki had deposed to the effect that on 31.08.2019, he was at
Jorhat Medical College & Hospital working as Helper. On that day, post-mortem examination
Page No.# 30/97over the dead body of Dr. Deben Dutta was conducted by team of Doctors and on that day he
was present as a helper. The wearing apparels of the dead body were handed over to police
by Dr. Kanak Chandra Das and same were seized by the police vide seizure-list (Exhibit-4)
wherein Exhibit-4 [3] & Exhibit-4 (4) are his signatures.
The following seized articles were identified by him as exhibited at Material Exhibit-31 to
Material Exhibit-34.
Cross-examination was declined by the learned defence counsel.
44. PW-35/Ruplal Balmiki had deposed to the effect that on 31.08.2019, he was at
Jorhat Medical College & Hospital working as Sweeper. On that day, post-mortem examination
over the dead body of Dr. Deben Dutta was conducted by team of Doctors and on that day he
was present as a sweeper. The wearing apparels of the dead body were handed over to
police by Dr. Kanak Chandra Das and same were seized by the police vide seizure-list (Exhibit-
4) wherein Exhibit-4 [5] & Exhibit-4 (6) are his signatures. He had identified the seized
articles as Material Exhibit-31 to Material Exhibit-34
Cross-examination was declined by the learned defence counsel.
45. PW-36/Gopal Bora had deposed to the effect that the incident occurred on
31.08.2019, which was Saturday when he went to the Teok Tea Garden Hospital due to a
cough where he saw a large crowd outside however he entered the Doctor’s chamber and
inside a group of about 40 to 50 people were assaulting Dr. Deben Dutta. The Deputy
Manager and Bor Manager asked him to calm the group. He also found police personnel
there. Despite his attempts and the attempts of the managers and the police to pacify the
crowd, they would not lilsten to anyone and they continued assaulting the Doctor.
He had deposed that he saw accused Sri Ajay Majhi throwing the table of the Doctor
towards the Doctor and thereafter started giving fists and blows. Sri Ajay Majhi with the
pressure machine hit Dr. Deben Dutta on his head/face. He saw accused Sri Sanjoy Rajowar,
S/o Late Babu Rajowar, breaking the glass panes of windows, and then with a broken piece of
window glass pierce into the right thigh of Dr. Deben Dutta, accused Sh Sanjoy Rajowar also
by pushing aside the table further he push away police personnel. He saw Sri Rinku Majhi
breaking the glass panes of the windows and showing his body thereafter as a matter of
pride. He saw accused Sri Sanjib Rajowar giving fists blows to Doctor from the front as well
as backside. The accused also asked the Doctor by signaling at the injured portion of his leg
by saying whether he got a lesson or not. He also pressed the injured portion on the leg of
the Doctor by using a piece of cloth.
He had also deposed that he saw accused Sri Bijay Rajowar giving fists blows to the Doctor
on his face where from it started bleeding. Then the family members of Sri Bijay Rajowar
Page No.# 31/97
pulled him away from the Doctor’s chamber. He saw accused Sri Batu Mahili breaking glass
panes of doors and shouting at police and pushed them by using force. He saw accused Sri
Kalanag Majhi giving fists blows to Doctor on his face and thereafter, when the police tried to
prevent him, he pushed away the police personnel. He saw accused Sri Rahul Rajowar giving
fists blows to the Doctor on his face and thereafter broke the glass panes of windows and
doors. He also pushed the police personnel. He saw accused Sri Kartik Bhumiz shouting loudly
and instigating others to assault and thrashed the Doctor.
He had deposed that he saw accused Sri Kalicharan Mahali attempted to assault the Doctor
and when he was prevented by the police, he pushed them away by using force. He saw
accused Sri Bijit Mahali @ Siba give 2/3 kicks on the chest of the Doctor as a result of which,
the Doctor lost his balance in the chair where he was sitting. Thereafter Bijit was pushed out
by police and then he broke the glass panes of the doors and windows of the Tea Garden
Hospital. He saw accused Sri Bablu Rajowar shouting loudly and chased away the 108
Ambulance which had already arrived there in order to prevent the Doctor from being taken
to the hospital for treatment. He saw blood on the floor of the Doctor’s chamber. Seeing the
incident of the assault upon the Doctor, he felt bad and left the place. Later on, he came to
know that the Doctor had succumbed to his injuries on the same day. The police during
course of investigation recorded his statement. He was also produced before the learned
Magistrate to record his statements wherein he put his thumb impression.
In his cross-examination, he had stated that on the next day of the incident, he was called to
Teok Police Station and the day after he was taken to Jorhat Sadar Police Station.
He had stated that he does not remember after how many days he was brought to the
learned Court for recording of his statement. On being called by the police for recording his
statement in the Court, he went to Jorhat Sadar Police Station around 2 p.m. He gave his
statement before the learned Magistrate regarding whatever he had seen. On the day of the
incident when he went to the hospital, he saw 400/500 people outside the hospital and 40/50
persons in the Doctor’s chamber. He had admitted he didn’t tell the police or the Magistrate
that he saw 40/50 people inside the Doctor’s room. He stated that most people at the scene
were from the Teok Tea Garden, where he had lived for about ten years, but he didn’t know
all the workers by name. He stated that when he went for the first time to the Doctor’s
chamber, initially there were four police personnel and at a later stage, more police personnel
came to Teok Tea Garden Hospital but he was not there later at that time.
He stated that besides himself, the Deputy Manager and Bor Manager asked about four other
individuals inside the Doctor’s room to pacify the members of the gathering which were inside
the Doctor’s chamber. Of them, accused persons namely, Sri Sanju Majhi, Sri Deba Rajowar,
Sri Debeswar Rajowar, and Sri Gulu Dev Majhi were asked by Deputy Manager and Bor
Manager to pacify the crowd. He stated that others besides the individuals he named were
also shouting. He stated that he did not know the names of all the accused persons except
the ones he names in the Court that day. He knew the accused persons identified in the Court
prior to the incident. He had stated that accused Rinku Majhi is not mentally stable.
He had stated that at the time of recording his statements, the police did not see any videos
nor showed him any videos.
Page No.# 32/97
He denied the other suggestions made by the learned counsel for the
accused/defendants.
46. PW-37/Rupam Saikia had deposed to the effect that the incident occurred on
07.08.20219. However, he did not remember the day on which the incident took place.
Around 3 p.m., he went to the garden to bring ration, which is given once in a week on
Saturday. After collecting his ration, he kept the same at his house and came to the hospital
to enquire about Samra Majhi. When he arrived outside the Garden Hospital, he saw
gathering of about 400/500 persons. He entered the Garden Hospital to see Samra Majhi and
he saw him given saline and oxygen. He heard attendants of Samra Majhi saying that oxygen
was being given to a dead man as according to them, Samra Majhi had already died. So,
oxygen was removed from Samra Majhi.
He had deposed that in the meantime, a few members of AATTSA arrived there and
Doctor Deben Dutta was made to sit in his chamber. Also, Manager of Teok Tea Garden,
arrived there and he prevented the persons present in the Doctor’s chamber from
assaulting/thrashing Dr. Deben Dutta. At that time, there were about 15/20 persons present
including the accused Sri. Ajay Majhi, who from behind gave fist blows on the face of Dr.
Deben Dutta. He saw accused persons namely, Sri Sanjib Rajowar, Sri Suresh Rajowar and Sri
Kalang Majhi giving fist blows from the front side on the face of Dr. Deben Dutta.
He had further deposed that he saw accused Sri Sanjoy Rajowar, after giving fist blows
on the face of Dr. Deben Dutta, went outside the chamber of Dr. Deben Dutta and then he
removed his shirt and tied it in his hand and thereafter, he broke the glass panes of the doors
of the hospital and then with one piece of broken glass, pierced the same in the left thigh of
Dr. Deben Dutta. He saw accused Sri Siba Mahili giving kicks on the chest of Dr. Deben Dutta
and he also broke the glass panes of doors and windows. He also saw accused Sri Kalicharan
Mahali @ Naina giving fist blows on the face of Doctor from the front side. He saw accused
Sri Batu Mahili breaking the glass panes of doors & windows of the hospital.
He has deposed that he also saw accused Sri Ratul Rajowar breaking the glass panes of
Page No.# 33/97
doors & windows of the hospital and in the process he sustained cut injuries in his right hand.
He saw accused Rahul Rajowar threatening the police and gestured to kick them. He saw
accused Rinku Majhi breaking the glass panes and doors & windows of the hospital and in the
process he sustained cut injuries in his hands. He saw Sri Tokolu Rajowar breaking the boards
and banners of the hospital.
He deposed that he also saw accused Sri Bablu Rajowar chasing away the 108
Ambulance which arrived at the Garden Hospital for taking Dr. Deben Dutta to the hospital for
treatment. He heard accused persons namely, Sri Dipak Rajowar, Sri Milan Rajowar and Sri
Kartik Bhumij shouting loudly and instigating the public to assault Dr. Deben Dutta.
He had deposed that he saw and identified the accused persons whom he named that
day in the Court. Police during course of investigation recorded his statement.
During cross-examination, he stated that his house was in Teok Tea Estate and that he
knew the tea garden workers of the tea estate.
He had stated that the persons who were present inside the Doctor’s chamber during
the incident were from the Teok Tea Garden. He stated that the police called him to the police
station about a week after the incident and did not show him any videos before recording his
statement or during recording of his statement. He stated that he did not know the names of
everyone present inside the Doctor’s room at the time.
He had stated that he recounted that on the next day of the incident around 11 p.m.,
police came to his house and first wanted to take his father for identifing the houses of the
persons whose names the police had brought along with them. Since his father couldn’t walk
due to his sickness, he volunteered to go with the police. He named the persons that day
which the police bought along with them at that time. He was called to the police station
again after 3/4 days and stayed there for about 4/5 days. Sri Pinku Majhi and Bhai were there
along with him.
After he left the police station, he was in his house and after about three days he came
to the Court for recording the statement by the learned Magistrate. He stated that he did not
Page No.# 34/97
state before the police about 15 to 20 people at the Doctor’s chamber at the time of the
incident, however, he stated before the police that several persons were present inside the
Doctor’s chamber. He stated that Sri Jintu Majhi, Sri Ramesh Bhumij, Sri Kulaguti Rajowar,
and Sri Bapai Rajowar were there with him but they came out when others started assaulting
Dr. Deben Dutta. He denied the other suggestions made to him by the learned counsel for the
defendant/accused persons.
Re-examination was done by the prosecution side.
He had deposed before the Court on 07.12.2019. On that day, he also deposed about
involvement of accused Sri Sanjay Rajowar in the said incident. The accused Sri Sanjay
Rajowar whose name he had implicated in his earlier deposition is the son of late Babu
Rajowar and is a resident of Maj Line, Teok Tea Estate under Teok P.S.
Cross examination was declined.
47. PW-38/Paban Garh had deposed to the effect that the occurrence took place on
31.08.2019, around 3/3.30 p.m. at the hospital of Teok Tea Garden. At the time of
occurrence, he was in his house. Then, he had seen many women proceeding towards Tea
Garden Hospital and he also followed them. While he reached the Tea Garden Hospital, he
saw many people gathering outside the Garden Hospital. Having reached the hospital, he saw
accused Guludeb Majhi assaulting the Welfare Officer of the tea garden. Then he saw the
Welfare Officer fleeing away from the Tea Garden Hospital.
He had deposed that thereafter, he entered into the Garden Hospital. Then he saw
some persons assaulting Dr. Deben Dutta in his chamber. He had been able to identify
accused namely, Sri Bablu Rajowar, Sri Milan Rajowar, Sri Ajay Majhi @ Tutu, Sri Ratul
Rajowar, Sri Siba Mahali @ Bijit, Sri Sanjoy Rajowar, Sri Sanjib Rajowar, Sri Kartik Bhumij, Sri
Bijay Rajowar, Sri Kalicharan Mahali @ Naina, Sri Kalang Majhi and Sri Suresh Rajowar, who
were administering fist and leg blow on the person of Dr. Deben Dutta. He had also seen
accused namely, Sri Dipak Rajowar, Sri Kishore Bhumji, Sri Misial Majhi @ Jabra Majhi, Sri
Ramesh Bhumij, Sri Sanjay Rajowar @ Toklu assaulting Dr. Deben Dutta and also instigating
Page No.# 35/97
others to assault him.
He had also found some accused standing nearby the place of occurrence and they are
namely Sri Arun Majhi, Sri Hari Majhi and Sri Rinku Majhi. Thereafter, police arrived and
accused namely, Sri Kalang Majhi, Sri Sanjoy Rajowar, son of Late Babu Rajowar and Sri Siba
Mahali @ Bijit, had not allowed police to enter into the Garden Hospital.
He had deposed that Sri Dodhi Kurmi and Garden Manager tried to rescue Dr. Deben
Dutta from the cluthches of the accused persons. He had seen Dr. Deben Dutta in a sitting
position on a chair and also seen blood oozing out from his leg. He had also seen blood in the
floor of the room and found the glasses of the windows and doors smashed. He tried to save
Dr. Deben Dutta, but the police personnel who arrived there ousted him from the Garden
Hospital. Then he left for home. Later on, he had heard that Dr. Deben Dutta succumbed to
the injuries. Police asked him about the occurrence and also got his statement recorded in
the Court.
During his cross-examination, he had stated that after two days police took him from
his home at night. The police kept him at the police station for about seven days, along with
Sri Kalanag Majhi, Sri Sanjay Rajowar @ Toklu, Sri Rameswar Bhumji, Sri Bijit Mahali, and Sri
Kartik Bhumji. He stated that during those seven days, the police didn’t question them about
the incident. After seven days, his statement was recorded in Court, and he wasn’t taken
from his residence again afterward.
He had stated that he did not see any videos on a mobile phone during his time at the
police station. He said that at the time of recording his statement, Sri Jintu Majhi, Sri Ramdev
Majhi, Sri Mukul Rajowar, Sri Ramu Gowala, and Sri Dadhi Kurmi accompanied him. During
those seven days, they did not talk about the incident at the police station.
He had stated that before his arrival at the Chamber of Dr. Deben Dutta he was
already injured. He didn’t know how the Doctor sustained leg injuries but saw the accused
persons assaulting him after his arrival. He had stated that about 30 to 40 people were
present in the Doctor’s chamber, and he could identify about 15 persons.
Page No.# 36/97
As a temporary worker at Teok Tea Garden, he knew the residents of his line in the
garden. He stated that he saw about 100 people outside the Tea Garden Hospital but he did
not know them.
He had denied the suggestion made by the learned counsel for the accused persons.
48. PW-39/Jiban Tanti had deposed to the effect that, the occurrence took place on
31.08.2019, around 3:30 p.m. At that time he was returning home from his work place, i.e,
Teok Tea Garden factory. On his way to home, he had seen the gathering of many people in
front of Teok Tea Garden Hospital. Then, he entered into the Garden Hospital and seen some
persons assaulting Dr. Deben Dutta and also seen some persons making video with mobile
phone and then he also recorded video with his mobile.
He had deposed that he saw accused namely, Sri Ajay Majhi, Sri Bijit Mahali, Sri Bijoay
Rajowar, Sri Sanjib Rajowar assaulting the Doctor in his chamber. He also found accused
namely, Sri Rinku Majhi creating hullah inside the Tea Garden Hospital. He had also seen
some of the accused persons assaulting their Welfare Officer outside the Garden Hospital. He
had been able to identify accused namely, Sri Milan Rajowar, Sri Bablu Rajowar, Sri Suresh
Rajowar, Sri Anil Mahji, Sri Pritam Majhi and Sri Dipak Rajowar assaulting the Welfare Officer
outside the Garden Hospital.
He had deposed that that day, he was been able to identify some of the accused
persons who were breaking window panes and glasses of doors and windows of the Garden
Hospital and they were namely, Sri Sanjoy Rajowar, Sri Sanjay Rajowar @ Toklu, Sri Ratul
Rajowar and Sri Bablu Rajowar and he had also seen accused Sri Rahul Rajowar chasing the
police personnel. He had also found accused Sri Batu Mahali shouting to assault Dr. Deben
Dutta.
He had deposed that accused Sri Kalicharan Mahali @ Naina entered into the chamber
of Dr. Deben Dutta through the backside door and assaulted the Doctor in his chamber. Also,
accused Sri Ajay Majhi @ Tutu, Sri Sanjoy Rajowar, son of Late Babu Rajowar and Sri Bijay
Rajowar threatened them not to adduce evidence in the Court. Thereafter, he left the
Page No.# 37/97
hospital and at about 9 p.m. he came to know that the Doctor had expired and out of fear he
deleted the video recorded by him from his mobile phone. Police asked him about the
occurrence and also got his statement recorded in the Court.
In his cross-examination, he had admitted he did not know when police arrested Sri
Ajay Majhi, Sri Bijay Rajowar, and Sri Sanjoy Rajowar. He stated that police picked him up
from his home at night three days after the incident and detained him for about seven days.
He was kept one day at Teok P.S. and the rest at Jorhat Sadar police station, along with
seven other individuals from Teok Tea Garden whose names he didn’t know. He stated that all
seven of them gave their statements in Court together. He stated that he recorded a video of
the incident for about an hour, capturing people both outside and inside the Doctor’s room.
He estimated around 200 to 300 people to be outside the hospital, and 30 to 35 were inside.
Those inside the Doctor’s room were from their tea garden but not employees. He denied
giving evidence in Court that day based on police instruction or in favor of the Garden
Manager. He denied the suggestion that they testified in Court because the police instructed
them, and he also denied being instructed by the police for his current testimony. He also
denied all the other suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused.
49. PW-40/Raju Barik had deposed to the effect that it was a Saturday when the
incident occurred. On the date of incident, around 4 p.m., while he was in his home, he heard
hue & cry coming from the side of Teok Tea Garden Hospital. Accordingly, he went there and
witnessed gathering of many people outside & inside the Teok Tea Garden Hospital. He also
heard the people saying “Mar-Mar”. He witnessed Sri Kalicharan Mahali, Sri Sanjib Rajowar,
Sri Sanjay Rajowar @ Toklu, resident of Pipal Line and another Sri Sanjay Rajowar @ Siba,
Resident of Major Line, entering into the Doctor’s chamber by breaking open the door. He
saw Siba @ Sanjib Rajowar entering into the chamber of the Doctor and administering leg
blow over Dr. Deben Dutta’s chest. At that time, Sri Rinku Majhi, Sri Dipak Rajowar, Sri
Debeswar Rajowar, were shouting to assault the Doctor.
Thereafter, one Ambulance came to take away the Doctor to the hospital. But, Sri
Page No.# 38/97
Bablu Rajowar has prevented the Ambulance.
He had also deposed that the Police recorded his statement after the incident. He was
also brought to the Court where the learned Magistrate recorded his statement. He stated
that his house is about half kilometer away from Teok Tea Garden Hospital. Later on, he came
to know that Dr. Deben Dutta had expired.
During his cross-examination, he stated that as told by the Officer-in-charge he
changed his name. He did not know the reason why his name had been changed. He left the
hospital around 5-5:30 p.m., till then the quarrel was still ongoing.
He stated that at about 12:00, at night Police came to his house and took him to the
police station. At the police station the police showed him the accused persons on a mobile
phone and asked whether he was familiar with them or not and he told the police he was
familiar with them. He was released around 10 a.m. the next morning, and police asked him
nothing else. He didn’t enter the Doctor’s room but waited outside. There were many people
inside the chamber. He denied that his Court testimony differed from what he told the police.
He was at Jorhat Police Station for about ten days before giving his statement in Court. He
admitted that he had stated before the police that he had not seen as to who had assaulted
the Doctor inside his chamber. He admitted that he stated before the learned Magistrate and
also before the police that the accused Sri Rinku Majhi had broken the glass of windows. He
denied all the other suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused persons.
50. PW-41/Pabitra Sahu as a daily wage earner. He had deposed to the effect that the
occurrence took place on 31.08.2019. On the date of incident, at about 3:30-4:00 p.m., he
was returning home from his work place. Then he saw the assembling of many persons near
Teok Tea Garden Hospital. Then, he also entered into the Garden Hospital and found, one Sri
Sunil Majhi @Arjun and enquired about the occurrence. Then, he was told that his elder
brother Samra Majhi went to the washroom and then fell down and sustained injury over his
head and then he was taken to Teok Tea Garden Hospital and there was no staff in the
hospital and as such, the treatment got delayed, and as a result, he succumbed to his
Page No.# 39/97
injuries. Thereafter, he saw some of the persons who assembled there and raised hue & cry
and started beating the Doctor in his chamber. Amongst the persons, who had assaulted the
Doctor, he could identify accused namely, Sri Ajay Majhi, Sri Kalnag Majhi, Sri Bijay Rajowar,
Sri Sanjib Rajowar, Sri Suresh Rajowar, Sri Siba Mahali and Sri Kalicharan Mahali. He had also
witnessed accused namely, Sri Rinku Majhi, Sri Ratul Rajowar and Sri Sanjay Rajowar, son of
Babu Rajowar, breaking the window-panes and tried to assault the Doctor by entering into his
chamber.
He had also deposed that Sri Rahul Rajowar, Sri Sanjay Rajowar @ Taklu and Sri
Batu Mahali @ Sivcharan, have prevented police in entering into the chamber of the
Doctor. Accused namely, Sri Arjun Majhi and Sri Ramesh Bhumij shouted and instigated the
people present there to assault the Doctor and accused Sri Bablu Rajowar has prevented the
108 Ambulance from entering into the Teok Tea Garden Hospital and sent it back. Accused Sri
Arun Majhi, who was the friend of deceased Samra Majhi, also shouted to assault the
Doctor. Thereafter, the police took the Doctor, in their vehicle to the hospital and he left the
place of occurrence. Later on, he heard that Dr. Deben Dutta had expired.
He had deposed that he had requested the police to conceal his name being afraid of
deposing against the accused.
Police took him to the Court where the learned Magistrate recorded his statement.
In his cross-examination, he had stated that police recorded his statement after one
day of the incident. He went to the police station on 01.09.2019, voluntarily and he told the
Officer-in-charge about the accused that were entangled/involved in the incident. He stated
that except for Sri Arjun Majhi, he did not speak to anyone else. He stated that he was not
familiar with others present, except for Sri Arjun Majhi and the accused he identified in Court.
He stated that he did not enter the Doctor’s chamber but was on the verandah of the Garden
Hospital, and there were about 70/80 people in the varendah of the hospital. The incident
occurred inside the Doctor’s room, which had one door and one window with glass panes
facing the verandah. He denied the suggestion that being on the verandah prevented him
Page No.# 40/97
from seeing what happened inside the Doctor’s room. He stated that police did not show him
any videos on a mobile phone. He stated that he not seen any staff in the Teok Tea Garden
Hospital while the incident took place. He does not know the staff of the tea garden who
were present amongst the 70/80 people in the Tea Garden Hospital. He denied the
suggestion that he did not see the occurrence and was turtored by the police. He also denied
all the other suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused persons.
51. PW- 42/Sri Utpal Jyoti Khound, reporter, NE Telvision. He had deposed to the
effect that the incident occurred on 31.08.2019. On that day, around 3.30 p.m., his colleague
Sri Rupak Bora who is a newspaper reporter/journalist by profession, informed Sri Saranga
Pani Saikia who is also his friend and reporter over telephone that in the Tata Tea Garden
Hospital of Teok, some people surrounded the Doctor and the situation is tense. Then he
alongwith Sarangapani Saikia went to Teok Tea Garden Hospital and witnessed many people
in the hospital compound. He went inside the Garden Hospital but his colleague stayed
outside the hospital campus. There, he witnessed the garden Welfare Officer proceeding
inside the campus and then on the verandah the people present there surrounded him and
started scuffling with him. He tried to intervene but he could not pacify them. Then, he has
recorded the video of the occurrence in his mobile [Redme Note-4]. He had also deposed that
some of the people present there assaulted the Welfare Officer and thereafter, the Welfare
Officer left the Garden Hospital. Then the situation became normal. Then he went inside the
hospital and met the Dr. Deben Dutta in his chamber and he talked to him. The Doctor told
him that one patient expired and the relatives became emotional and they were weeping near
the dead body. The Doctor was alone in the hospital and he requested him to remain there
for sometime.
He had also deposed that thereafter, about 50/60 persons entered into the Doctor’s
chamber and started altercation with him. Thereafter, the persons started causing mischief of
the table of the Doctor and other articles present inside the Doctor’s chamber and started
man-handling him. In the meantime, police personnel arrived there. The public present there
Page No.# 41/97
started altercation with the police personnel also. Then the people who remained outside the
hospital started causing mischief with the windowpanes of the hospital. Thereafter, again the
people inside the room started hue & cry. He saw the Doctor sitting on a chair and also saw
oozing out of blood from his right leg and blood-stain over his trouser. He entered into the
Doctor’s chamber and he found no articles of first-aid which were thrown out of the hospital
by the people who remained inside the room. He then tried to wrap the injury by means of
‘Saline pipe’. In the meantime, one 108 Ambulance arrived there but the people gathered
inside the hospital did not allow to take away the injured Doctor from the hospital.
He had also deposed that thereafter, with the help of a police vehicle and through the
back door of the hospital they shifted Dr. Deben Dutta to Jorhat Medical College & Hospital
for medical treatment. About two hours after shifting the Doctor to Jorhat Medical College &
Hospital, he came to know that the Doctor had succumbed to his injuries.
He had deposed that he recorded video footage inside the Doctor’s room also while the
occurrence was going on and reported he got the news broadcasted almost in all news
channel. Thereafter, the Officer-in-charge, Teok P.S. served one notice to him to furnish the
video footage recorded by him alongwith his mobile phone with one certificate. Exhibit-9 is
the copy of the notice sent by police wherein Exhibit-9 (1) is his signature. Then at the police
station he handed over the mobile phone and the police extracted the data from a mobile to
a compact C.D with the help of a data cable. The data from his mobile phone were
transferred to 18 [eighteen] C.D., which he has submitted before police in the same form,
which he has recorded in his mobile phone and he put his signatures in the 18 [eighteen]
C.D. He has also given one certificate each against eighteen C.Ds./discs.
Material Exhibit-35 to Material Exhibit-52 are the Compact Disc marked as the videos
recorded by him.
In his cross-examination, he stated that the police recorded his statement. He
admitted the suggestion that he did not state before the police that his colleague Sri Rupak
Bora who was a newspaper reporter/journalist by profession, informed Sri Saranga Pani
Page No.# 42/97
Saikia, who is also a friend and a reporter over the phone that about a tense situation at the
Teok Tea Garden Hospital in Teok where some people had surrounded the Doctor. He also
admitted the suggestion that he did not state before the police that he along with
Sarangapani Saikia went to Teok Tea Garden Hospital and witnessed many people in the
hospital compound. He stated that he went inside the Garden Hospital but his colleague
stayed outside. He witnessed the garden Welfare Officer proceeding inside the campus, and
then on the varendah the people present there surrounded him and started scuffling with
him. He tried to intervene but could not pacify them and that then he had recorded the video
of the occurrence in his mobile (Redmi Note 4). Some of the people there assaulted the
Welfare Officer left the Garden Hospital. Then the situation became normal. Then he went
inside the hospital and met Dr. Deben Dutta in his chamber and he talked to him. The Doctor
told him that one patient expired and the relatives became emotional and they were weeping
near the dead body. The Doctor was alone in the hospital and he requested him to
remain there for sometime.
He also stated that he did not state before the police that about 50/60 persons entered
into the Doctor’s chamber and started altercation with him. Thereafter, the persons started
causing mischief of the table of the Doctor and other articles present inside the Doctor’s
chamber and started man-handling him. In the meantime, police personnel arrived there. The
public present there started altercation with the police personnel also. Then the people who
remained outside the hospital started causing mischief with the windowpanes of the hospital.
Thereafter, again the people inside the room started hue & cry. He saw the Doctor sitting on
a chair and also saw blood oozing out of from his right leg and blood-stain over his trouser.
He entered into the Doctor’s chamber and he found no articles of first-aid which were thrown
out of the hospital by the people who remained inside the room. He then tried to wrap the
injury by means of ‘Saline pipe’. In the meantime, one 108 Ambulance arrived there but the
people gathered inside the hospital did not allow to take away the injured Doctor from the
hospital.
He denied the suggestion that he did not state before the police that thereafter, with
Page No.# 43/97
the help of a police vehicle and through the back door of the hospital they shifted Dr. Deben
Dutta to Jorhat Medical College & Hospital for medical treatment. About two hours after
shifting the Doctor to Jorhat Medical College & Hospital, he came to know that the Doctor
had succumbed to his injuries.
He stated that he recorded video footage inside the Doctor’s room also while the
occurrence was going on. Being reported he got the news broadcasted almost in all news
channels. Thereafter, the Officer-in-charge, Teok P.S. served one notice to him to furnish the
video footage recorded by him alongwith his mobile phone with one certificate. He stated that
he had not seen the persons who caused mischieve of the window panes from outside. He
stated that after 4/5 days of the incident, he gave the video footage to the police but he had
forgotten the date on which he gave the same to the police. He charged his mobile battery
for those 4/5 days. He stated that he supplied the video footage to all his collegues who were
working in different news channel prior to supply of the same to police personnel. He stated
that before giving video footage to police some video footage got viral in social media.
He had stated that many others present also recorded videos. He recorded the video
on his phone’s internal memory. He saw video footage of Teok Tea Garden Hospital on his
facebook but didn’t receive any such videos directly on his phone. He denied the suggestion
that the video footage he gave to the police was not the original he recorded. He denied the
suggestion that viral video footage also got saved on his phone’s internal storage, as his
phone only had one. He denied the suggestion that the video footage recorded by him in his
mobile phone was unauthenticated, inaccurate, and irrelevant to the occurrence of this case.
He denied the suggestion that the video footage which he gave to the police officer vide the
(Material Exhibit-35 to Material Exhibit-52) were not related to the case. He stated that the
certificates issued by him regarding different video footage of the incident were drafted by
the police at the police station itself and he put his signature in the certificates after going
through the same. He stated that he received the Exhibit-9 (notice) at his residence. He
received the notice (Exhibit-9) on 14/09/2019, and he put his signatures on the certificates
Page No.# 44/97
which he had given regarding the video footage CDs which he signed on the same date. He
stated that police did not seize his mobile phone used to record the video.
52. PW-43/Sri Riju Kumar Saikia had deposed to the effect that the incident occurred
on 31.08.2019. Around 4 p.m., he received information from his colleague Sri Utpal Jyoti
Khound that some incident had taken place at Teok Tea Garden Hospital with the Doctor.
Arriving at the hospital, he witnessed the Dr. Deben Dutta sitting on the chair of his chamber.
The Garden Manager of the garden alongwith two garden employees of the office tried to
protect the Doctor from the people present there. He did not know the name of the Garden
Manager. About 70/80 people were inside the Garden Hospital and about 500 people were
standing outside the Garden Hospital. While he was present there, he has seen one person
entering into the chamber of the Doctor under his table and administered fist blow on the
person of the Doctor. Then the other people present there started assaulting the Doctor. Then
some persons, who were standing outside the Tea Garden Hospital compound, dashed the
windowpanes from outside which hit on the head of the Doctor and the Doctor sustained
injury and blood was also oozing out from one of his leg. He captured the video footage of
the incident with his mobile [Oppo A-5]. Then they asked the police personnel present there
to call one 108 Ambulance. When the 108 Ambulance arrived there, the people present there
did not allow shifting the Doctor in the said vehicle, for which, the 108 Ambulance had to
return back. The number of police personnel present at the place of occurrence was very few
in comparison to the number of people present there. And therefore, police personnel could
not control the mob. Then his friend Sri Utpal Jyoti Khound wrapped the injury of the Doctor
to stop bleeding from his leg by a ‘Saline’ pipe. Thereafter, some more police personnel
arrived there and shifted the Doctor to the hospital through the back door in a police vehicle.
Later on, they came to know that the Doctor succumbed to the injuries at Jorhat Medical
College & Hospital. He has sent the video footage recorded by him through his mobile to his
channel ‘Pratidin Time’ from where it was broadcasted. Then police requested him to give the
said video footage to them also. Accordingly, he has given the same to police. They have
extracted the data from his mobile to a C.D. through the date cable. They have also given a
Page No.# 45/97
notice to him also to that effect. Exhibit-28 is the copy of the notice sent by police wherein
Exhibit-28 (1) is his signature.
He had deposed that the data from his mobile were transferred to 2 [two] C.D. which
he has submitted before police in the same form, which he has recorded in his mobile phone
and he put his signatures in the 2 [two] C.D’s. He has also given one certificate each against
two C.Ds./discs.
Material Exhibit-53 is Compact Disc marked as Video No. 1 wherein Exhibit-53 [1] is his
signature over the C.D. Exhibit-29 is the certificate issued against Video No. 1 and Exhibit-29
(1) & Exhibit-29 (2) are his signatures.
Material Exhibit-54 is Compact Disc marked as Video No. 2 wherein Exhibit-54 [1] is his
signature over the C.D. Exhibit-30 is the certificate issued against Video No. 2 and Exhibit-30
(1) & Exhibit-30 (2) are his signatures.
In his cross-examination, he had admitted that the police recorded his statement and
that he was present in the room where the Doctor was attacked by the mob on the day of the
incident.
He had admitted that he did not tell the police that upon arriving at the hospital, he
saw Dr. Deben Dutta sitting on his chamber’s chair, that the Garden Manager and two office
employees tried to protect the Doctor, that he didn’t know the Garden Manager’s name, and
that about 70 to 80 people were inside and about 500 outside the hospital, because the
police didn’t ask him about these details. He also didn’t tell the police that he saw someone
enter the Doctor’s chamber, go under the table and punch the Doctor, after which others
assaulted the Doctor. He also didn’t mention that people outside broke the windowpanes,
hitting the Doctor’s head and causing injury, and that he saw blood oozing from the Doctor’s
leg, because the police didn’t ask him about these things. He denied not telling the police that
he captured video footage of the incident with his Oppo A-5 mobile, that they asked the
police to call a 108 Ambulance, that the Ambulance arrived but couldn’t take the Doctor
because of the crowd, that the police presence was small compared to the crowd and they
Page No.# 46/97
couldn’t control it, that his friend Sri Utpal Jyoti Khound used a saline pipe to stop the
bleeding from the Doctor’s leg, that more police arrived and took the Doctor to the hospital
through the back door in a police vehicle, and that they later learned of the Doctor’s death at
Jorhat Medical College & Hospital and denied that he wasn’t present at the scene, didn’t
witness the incident, and that his Court testimony wasn’t a true account of events. He stated
he gave the video footage to the police two to three days after the incident. Before he gave
the clips to the police, some footage went viral on social media. He continued using his
mobile after recording the video, including social media. He saw some viral video footage on
his phone and had an extra memory card in it. He recorded the incident video on his phone’s
internal memory and also recorded other incidents on the same phone, stored in the internal
memory.
He stated that the police at the station drafted the certificates (Exhibit-29 & Exhibit-30)
regarding the video footage after asking him, and he signed them after reviewing their
contents. He admitted he wasn’t a mobile expert. The video name
“VID20190831163154.mp4” and Serial No. 43 ADCO were reflected on his phone. He
transferred the video footage to the police at the station using a data cable.
53. PW-44/Sri Duleswar Majhi had deposed to the effect that the incident occurred on
31.08.2019. At about 3 p.m., he was in the office of Teok Tea Estate. Around 3.30 p.m., he
received information from Sri Manoj Rajak, who is the chowkidar of the hospital, that some
incident had taken place in Teok Tea Garden Hospital. Accordingly, he went towards Teok Tea
Garden Hospital in his bicycle. Sri Manoj Gogoi, Manager, Teok T.E. went to Teok Tea Garden
Hospital in a vehicle and he followed him. When he reached there, he found about 40
persons on the verandah of the hospital and they were shouting. He also saw the Garden
Manager, Sri Manoj Gogoi entering into the hospital compound and he also immediately
followed him. He witnessed after entering into the compound of the hospital that around
30/40 persons were assaulting the Doctor who was sitting on his chair in his chamber. He also
witnessed the persons assaulting the Doctor with fist & blows. All of them belonged to Teok
Page No.# 47/97
Tea Estate.
He had witnessed (1) Sri Sanjib Rajowar, son of Jotin Rajowar, (2) Sri Sanjoy Rajowar
(3) Sri Sanjay Rajowar @ Taklu (4) Sri Bablu Rajowar (5) Sri Bijay Rajowar (6) Sri Suresh
Rajowar (7) Sri Kartick Bhumij (8) Sri Rahul Rajowar (9) Sri Kalanga Majhi (10) Sri Sibcharan
Mahili @ Naina (11) Sri Kalicharan Mahili (12) Sri Siba Mahili (13) Sri Ajay Majhi (14) Sri Ratul
Rajowar (15) Sri Rameswar Bhumij (16) Sri Rinku Majhi (17) Sri Milan Rajowar (18) Sri Dipak
Rajowar (19) Sri Rinku Bakti and, (20) Sri Bolin Rajowar, assaulting the Doctor, Deben Dutta
in his chamber with fist & blows.
He had deposed that he also witnessed the Garden Manager Sri Manoj Gogoi, Deputy
Manager Sri Mukta Jyoti Barua and staff Sri Bijoy Rajowar trying to save the Doctor from the
clutches of the accused named-above. He also tried to pacify the person present in the
Doctor’s chamber. At that time somebody had broken the window panes of the Garden
Hospital. He came out of the Doctor’s chamber and witnessed police personnel entering into
the compound of the Teok Tea Garden Hospital. Some of the persons present outside the
hospital compound were shouting to assault the Doctor. They also caused mischief of the
furnitures in the hospital. Someone from there called the 108 Ambulance and when the
Ambulance arrived at there, accused persons namely Sri Bablu Rajowar and Sri Milan
Rajowar, chased away the 108 Ambulance. They again returned to the Doctor’s room and
started to assault the Doctor. Rest of the accused persons whom he has named that day also
followed Bablu and Milan to chase away the 108 Ambulance from the hospital campus.
Thereafter, all of them again went towards the Doctor’s chamber and started assaulting the
Doctor.
He had deposed that when police arrived there and tried to control the situation then
some of the accused persons shouted to assault the police personnel also. He also went near
the 108 Ambulance and when he returned to the hospital, he found blood oozing out from
one of the leg of Dr. Deben Dutta. After sometime, more police personnel arrived at Teok Tea
Garden Hospital and then the situation was to some extent under control and in the
Page No.# 48/97
meantime, the Doctor was shifted to Jorhat Medical College & Hospital at about 5.30 p.m
where he succumbed to his injuries at 7.30 p.m. Later on, he came to know that Samra
Majhi, who was taken to the Garden Hospital for treatment and who was suffering from
illness had expired in the Teok Tea Garden Hospital. He has seen the dead body of Samra
Majhi at the hospital. Later on, the dead body was taken to Jorhat Medical College & Hospital
for post-mortem examination.
On the next day of occurrence, police recorded his statement by calling him to the
police station. Then they showed him some video footage of the incident and then he
identified the accused persons whose names he has told before the Court that day.
He had deposed that he cannot say wherefrom the police collected the aforesaid video
footage which was shown to me by police personnel. But he has seen some of the people
recording video footage of the incident at the place of occurrence. Police having shown him
the video footage asked to identify the accused persons and accordingly, he identified them
seeing the video footage and thereafter police downloaded some of the snaps of the video
and taken print-out of the same and also taken his signature thereon.
Material Exhibit-53 is the Compact Disc marked as Video No. 1 and on playing of the
same in the Court that day in a desk-top computer he has seen assaulting the Doctor by
accused Sri Ajay Majhi and Sri Manoj Majhi was standing nearby the co-accused Sri Ajay
Majhi.
Material Exhibit-55 is the print-out photograph of Video No. 1 and Material Exhibit-55
[1] is his signature.
He had deposed that Sri Sanjay Rajowar, Sri Rinku Majhi, Sri Suresh Rajowar, Sri
Rameswar Bhumij, Sri Bablu Rajowar, Sri Kalanag Majhi, Sri Sanjib Rajowar, Sri Debeswar
Rajowar, Sri Kartick Bhumij, Sri Rahul Rajowar, Sir Sibcharan Mahili were scuffling with the
police personnel. Sri Siba Mahili @ Bijit Mahili and Sri Dipak Rajowar were assaulting the
Doctor and Sri Manoj Gogoi, the Garden Manager and Sri Mukhul Rajowar ware trying to save
the Doctor which he has seen in the video on playing. He also saw blood oozing out of from
Page No.# 49/97
the head of Dr. Deben Dutta. He also saw accused Sri Sanjay Rajowar, son of Late Bablu
Rajowar breaking the window glasses of window panes. Many people assembled at the place
of occurrence but he could not identify all the persons.
Material Exhibit-55 bears photograph of accused Sri Manoj Majhi and Sri Ajay Majhi
and stated that Exhibit 56 to Material Exhibit-126 are the photo printouts of all the accused
persons Material Exhibit-124 to Material Exhibit-126 are taken from Video No. 14.
During his cross-examination, he had admitted that all the accused 20 (twenty) accused
persons whom he had named in his examination in chief had not assaulted the Doctor. He
could not identify any of the accused persons in the photograph shown. However, he could
identify a few in the cross examination.
He had stated that his statement was recorded by the police, and the Investigating
Officer (I.O.) subsequently read it over to him. He confirmed that he did not tell the I.O. that
some individuals outside the hospital were shouting to assault the Doctor and also damaged
the Garden Hospital’s furniture. He also confirmed that he did not tell the I.O. that the
accused Sri Bablu Rajowar and Sri Milan Rajowar chased away the 108 Ambulance.
Furthermore, he confirmed that he did not tell the I.O. that both accused returned to the
Doctor’s chamber after chasing the Ambulance and then assaulted the Doctor. He also did not
tell the I.O. that these two accused chased the Ambulance from the 108 campus. Additionally,
he confirmed that he did not tell the I.O. that all the accused then went to the Doctor’s
chamber and assaulted him. He stated that he did not tell the I.O. that when the police
arrived and tried to control the situation, some of the accused shouted to assault the police
personnel as well. He also confirmed that he did not tell the I.O. that he went to the
Ambulance and upon returning to the Doctor’s room found blood oozing from the Doctor;
that after some time more police gathered at the hospital, the situation was controlled, he
returned to the office, and then learned around 5:30 p.m. that Dr. Deben Dutta had been
taken to Jorhat Medical College & Hospital for treatment where he died. He also confirmed
that he did not tell the I.O. that he later learned about the death of Samra Majhi, who had
Page No.# 50/97
been taken to the hospital for treatment and had died at Teok Tea Garden Hospital, and that
he had seen Samra Majhi’s body at the hospital before it was sent for post-mortem.
He stated that he couldn’t recall whether he was questioned about the incident the next
day or the day after. The photographs shown to him in Court that day were also shown to
him by the police. He was shown a silent video in Court the previous day. He didn’t hear what
was said in Video No. 1, and Video Nos. 2, 3, 4, 10, 12, 13, and 14 were not shown to him in
Court that day. He hadn’t seen the roles played by the accused in Videos No. 2, 3, 4, 10, 12,
13, and 14. He denied that the videos shown to him were not the videos produced in Court
and that Video No. 1 shown in Court was not the video shown by the police. He denied
testifying falsely and not knowing which of the twenty previously named accused assaulted
the Doctor. He was called to the police station for six to seven days, and police showed him
videos during those times. He didn’t know from whom the police had collected those videos.
He denied not seeing the occurrence and that the accused he named in his evidence were not
present at the scene, also denying that he was testifying in Court as instructed by the police.
54. PW-45/Dr. Amrit Kumar Saikia had deposed to the effect that 18.09.2019, he got
one letter from S.I. Dipankar Gogoi, In-charge of Teok Police Station requesting for
clarification regarding whether the Teok Tea Estate Hospital, under Teok P.S., District-Jorhat,
is a “Medicare Service Institution” and the deceased Medical Officer Sri Deben Dutta, a
medicare service personnel as per the Assam Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service
Institution [Prevention of Violence & Damage to Property] Act, 2011 in connection with Teok
P.S. Case No. 434/2019. Accordingly, on 18.09.2019, he has given a reply to the Officer-in-
charge, Teok P.S., to the effect that Teok T.E. Hospital, under Teok P.S., District-Jorhat, is a
“Medicare Service Institution” and the deceased Sri Deben Dutta is a medicare service person
as per the Assam Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Servide Institution [Prevention of
Violence & Damage to Property Act], 2011. Exhibit-31 is his report and Exhibit-31 [1] is his
signature thereon.
55. PW-46/Sri Manjil Dutta had deposed to the effect that in his deposition, he stated
Page No.# 51/97
that late Deben Chandra Dutta is his father. The occurrence took place on 31.08.2019. On
that day, while he was at Guwahati, he received one phone call from one of his best friend Sri
Sujit Dutta that some labourers of Teok Tea Estate have assaulted his father Dr. Deben Dutta
at the Teok Tea Estate Hospital with sharp glass plate and cut the artery of right leg and as a
result, massive bleeding is taking place from all over the body of his father. Then he asked
him to take his father to the hospital. Then his friend told him that he is not in a position to
take his father to the hospital as the tea garden labourers prevented and also they stopped
the 108 Ambulance that came to take his father to Jorhat Medical College & Hospital. His best
friend had shown him the video footage of assaulting his father by the labourers of Teok Tea
Estate Hospital. Later on, he came to know that his father was shifted to Jorhat Medical
College & Hospital for treatment. Then, he has proceeded to Jorhat from Guwahati at about
5.30 p.m. on that day itself and reached Jorhat Medical College & Hospital at about 11 p.m.,
there he found his father dead. When he reached Jorhat Medical College & Hospital, he had
witnessed the dead body of his father being taken for post-mortem examination. Thereafter,
they have taken the dead body to their residence, where he has witnessed his dead body and
performed his last rites on the next day.
He had deposed that he has seen the video footage and he has noticed the Welfare
Officer of the garden namely Sri Jibon Kurmi who had come to rescue his father and the tea
garden labourers assaulting him with fist & blows. He has also seen in the video footage that
his late father tried to save himself but the tea garden labourers assaulted him and also cut
the artery of his right leg. He knew that accused Sri Sanjay Rajowar was the main culprit in
the incident. He heard from other persons that accused Manoj Majhi had told that the Doctor
should not be in the service in the tea garden. Thereafter, he lodged the ejahar with the
Officer-in-charge, Teok P.S. on 04/09/2019, mentioning the name of accused involved in the
occurrence. Exhibit-32 is the said ejahar and Exhibit-32 [1] is his signature thereon.
In his cross-examination, he had admitted that he lodged the F.I.R. [Exhibit-32] based on the
video footage he saw and what he heard from his friends and other people. He mainly heard
about the incident from Sri Sujit Dutta and Sri Manoj Gogoi. He also heard about it from some
other people but couldn’t recall their names, so he didn’t include them in the F.I.R. He denied
that his friends Sri Sujit Dutta and Sri Manoj Gogoi gave him an incorrect account of the
incident. He confirmed that he did not mention the names of Sri Sujit Dutta and Sri Manoj
Gogoi in the F.I.R. His father was diabetic and had hypertension, and was 70 years old at the
time of the incident. He admitted that he did not see the incident with his own eyes. He
watched a video recording made by Sri Utpal Saikia. He also received other video footage on
his mobile but didn’t know who recorded it or sent it to him. He believed that if the Tea
Garden’s Welfare Officer, Sri Jibon Kurmi, had been allowed into the hospital, his father would
still be alive. He saw Manoj Majhi assaulting Sri Jibon Kurmi in a video but didn’t know who
recorded it. He denied not seeing the video of Sri Manoj Majhi assaulting Sri Jibon Kurmi. He
confirmed that he did not mention Sri Sanjoy Rajowar as the main culprit in his F.I.R. He
denied testifying falsely in Court that day. He lodged the F.I.R. four days after the incident
and mentioned the reason for the delay. The I.O. did not record his statement regarding the
incident. He denied testifying falsely in Court that day in favor of his late father.
Page No.# 52/97
56. PW-47/Sri Arup Manta had deposed to the effect that on 11.09.2019, he was
working as Junior Scientific Officer, DNA Typing Unit & Serology Division, Directorate of
Forensic Science, Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati-781019. On that day, he received one sealed
parcel from the Director- cum-Chemical Examiner, Directorate of Forensic Science, Kahilipara,
Guwahati, Assam, in connection with Teok P.S. Case No. 434/2019 dated Nil under Sections
302/341/342/427/506/143/ 144/147/148 of IPC read with Section 149/186 of IPC and read
with Section 4 of Assam Medicare Servie Persons and Medicare Service Institutions
(Prevention of Violence & Damage to Property) Act, 2011 which was sent by the Additional
Superintendent of Police [Headquarter], Jorhat, by his Memo No. JHT/V/19/7427 dated
10/09/2019. Their Director received 2 [two] parcels. The parcel 1 (one) consisted of one (1)
exhibit in a paper packet and parcel 2 (two) consisted of one (1) exhibit in a paper packet
which was sealed with the impression seal corresponding with the seal impression forwarded.
(Four exhibits were received from Serology Division of our laboratory).
Description Of Articles
1. One blue coloured revolving chair – Marked as Exhibit No.
2. One wooden plank of length 75 cm -Marked as Exhibit No. DNA 2421/19 approximately
which has a side arm of length 28 cm approximately that is attached towards the base.
3. One small broken piece of a glass of -Marked as Exhibit No.DNA length approx. 13 cm
2422/19.
4. One silver gray coloured trouser that was found – Marked as Exhibit No. torn on the right
side. A belt was found attached 2423/2019 with the trouser.
5. One sealed vial contains 2 ml (approximately)-Marked as Exhibit No. DNAPost mortem
blood of deceased 2424/2019 Dr. Deben Dutta which was preserved in NAF.
6. One sealed vial contains 5 ml (approximately) – Marked as Exhibit No. DNA post mortem
blood of deceased 2425/19 Dr. Deben Dutta which was preserved in EDTA.
Result of the DNA Finger printing Analysis
DNA from the sources of the above exhibits were isolated by organic extraction
method and subjected to multiplex PCR reaction for sixteen STR loci Alleles & Amelogenin
using AmpFLSTR Identifiler Kit. The amplified products alongwith controls were run on
Automated DNA Sequencer and analysis was carried out using Genemapper IV v3.7 software
with respect to standard ladder. The resultant allele distribution in different loci in the
different exhibits was studied and it was observed:
Page No.# 53/97
1. That one of the allele of the amplified loci of Exhibit No. DNA 2420/19 (as marked)
matches with one of the respective allele in the DNA profile of Exhibit No. DNA 2423/19 (as
marked).
2. Exhibit No. DNA 2421/19, DNA 2422/19, DNA 2424/19 & DNA 2425/19 (as marked) were
subjected for DNA isolation but the DNA yield from exhibits were fragmented and could not
be amplified. Therefore, its comparison could not be done.
Material Exhibit-7 is DNA 2420/19 [One blue coloured revolving chair].
Material Exhibit-34 is DNA 2423/19 [One silver gray coloured trouser that was found torn on
the right side. A belt was found attached with the trouser].
Exhibit-34 is his report in 02 [two] pages and Exhibit-34 (1) is his signature dated
19/09/2019.
During his cross-examination, he admitted that the parcels were received by the
Director-cum-Chemical Examiner to the Government of Assam, Directorate of Forensic
Science, Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati. He has opened the parcels in presence of one
laboratory bearer and one photographer. He alone conducted examination of the DNA part of
the exhibits.
57. PW-48/Tarun Chandra Sonowal had deposed to the effect that 10/09/2019, he
was working as Assistant Jailor, Central Jail, Jorhat. On that day, S.I. Dipankar Kumar Gogoi,
Officer-in-charge, Teok P.S.-cum-I.O. of this case came to Central Jail, Jorhat, for taking finger
print of accused Sanjay Rajowar, Son of Late Babu Rajowar of Teok Tea Estate in connection
with Teok P.S. Case 434/2019 dated Nil under Sections
302/341/342/427/506/143/144/147/148 of IPC read with Section 149/186 of IPC and read
with Section 4 of Assam Medicare Servie Persons and Medicare Service Institutions
(Prevention of Violence & Damage to Property) Act, 2011 as per order of the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat.
He had deposed that then, they produced the accused Sanjoy Rajowar before the I.O.
at Central Jail, Jorhat, and then the I.O. has taken the finger print of accused Sanjoy Rajowar
Page No.# 54/97
in presence of himself and Smt. Anindita Bora, Assistant Jailor, Jorhat, in two sets. Exhibit-35
is the first set of the finger prints of accused Sanjoy Rajowar containing in 05 [five] pages
and Exhibit-35 [1] to Exhibit-35 [5] are his signatures. Exhibit-36 is the second set of the
finger prints of accused Sanjoy Rajowar containing in 05 [five] pages and Exhibit-36 [1] to
Exhibit-36 [5] are his signatures.
In his cross-examination, he had admitted that while the I.O. has taken the finger prints
of accused Sanjoy Rajowar, no Judicial Magistrate or Executive Magistrate were present in the
Central Jail, Jorhat.
At the time of taking finger prints of the accused, only his name was asked by the I.O.
of the case. Except his name, nothing was asked by the I.O. No independent witnesses were
present at the time of taking finger prints of accused Sanjoy Rajowar, except the government
officials.
58. PW-49/Smt. Anindita Borah had deposed to the effect that on 10.09.2019, She
was working as Assistant Jailor, Central Jail, Jorhat. On that day, S.I. Dipankar Kumar Gogoi,
Officer-in-charge, Teok P.S.-cum-I.O. of this case came to Central Jail, Jorhat, as well as
Additional S.P. [Headquarter], Jorhat, for obtaining finger print of accused Sanjay Rajowar,
Son of Late Babu Rajowar of Teok Tea Estate in connection with Teok P.S. Case No. 434/2019
dated Nil under Sections 302/341/342/427/506/143/144/147/148 of IPC read with Section
149/186 of IPC and read with Section 4 of Assam Medicare Servie Persons and Medicare
Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence & Damage to Property) Act, 2011 as per order of
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat. Then, they produced the accused Sanjay
Rajowar before the I.O. at Central Jail, Jorhat, and then the I.O. has taken the finger print of
accused Sanjay Rajowar in presence of herself and Sri Tarun Chandra Sonowal, Assistant
Jailor, Jorhat, in two sets of his both hands. Exhibit-35 is the first set of the finger prints of
accused Sanjoy Rajowar containing in 05 [five] pages and Exhibit- 35 [6] to Exhibit-35 [10]
are her signatures. Exhibit-36 is the second set of the finger prints of accused Sanjay Rajowar
containing in 05 [five] pages and Exhibit-36 [6] to Exhibit-36 [10] are her signatures.
During her cross-examination, she admitted that they have produced the accused
Page No.# 55/97
Sanjoy Rajowar before the I.O. Nobody has identified him. While the I.O. has taken the finger
prints of accused Sanjay Rajowar, at that time the I.O. of the case namely Sri Dipankar Gogoi
as well as Additional S.P. [Headquarter] Sri Prakash Sonowal was present.
No independent witnesses were present at the time of taking finger prints of accused
Sanjoy Rajowar, except the government officials.
59. PW-50/Nirmal Kumar Laskar had deposed that on 13.09.2019, while working as
S.D.J.M. (S), Jorhat, he received an order from the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jorhat, to conduct a Test Identification Parade (T.I.P.) related to Teok P.S. Case No. 434/2019.
On the same day, he ordered the I.O. of the case to arrange for the T.I.P. at Central Jail,
Jorhat.On September 16, 2019, he went to Central Jail, Jorhat, and conducted the T.I.P. for
three witnesses: Sri Manoj Das, Sri Rupam Saikia, and Sri Jiban Tanti. The T.I.P. took place in
an open area inside the jail. The suspects were inside the jail, and the witnesses were
outside, with the inside not visible from the outside, ensuring no prior viewing of suspects by
witnesses. Afterward, the witnesses were taken inside the jail premises. During the T.I.P., no
police personnel were present inside the jail. The witnesses were then taken into a room and
instructed to identify the suspects from a lineup by touching them. Following the I.O’s
request, the witnesses wore ‘Burkhas’ to conceal their identities. Thirty-two suspects were
lined up with 180 other inmates of similar build and height, all wearing similar clothing as
much as possible.
He had deposed that in the first round, witness Sri Manoj Das identified all suspects
except Sri Kalanag Majhi and Sri Ratul Rajowar. The witness was taken back to the room, and
the lineup was reshuffled. In the second round, this witness identified all suspects except Sri
Sima Mahili and Sri Bablu Rajowar. After another reshuffle, the witness identified all 32
suspects in the third round. The same procedure was followed for the other two witnesses.
Sri Rupam Saikia identified all suspects except Sri Debeswar Rajowar and Sri Ratul Rajowar in
the first round. In the second round, this witness couldn’t identify suspect Bablu Rajowar but
suspected all others. However, in the third round, he identified all 32 suspects. The T.I.P. was
conducted in the presence of two independent witnesses: Sri Firdus Rahman, Assistant Jailor,
Page No.# 56/97
Central Jail, Jorhat, and Sri Keshoram Das, Head Warden. And the names of the suspects
identified by the witnesses were listed. He filled out the T.I.P. charts, which were marked as
exhibits along with the signatures of the witnesses and the two independent witnesses, all
signed in his presence. On the same day, the I.O. produced five other witnesses, but due to
lack of time, their T.I.P. was conducted the next day, 17.09.2019. And on that day, the I.O.
produced five witnesses: Sri Gopal Borah, Sri Paban Garh, Sri Pabitra Sahu, Sri Raju Barik,
and Sri Duleswar Majhi. The same procedures were followed as on 16.09.2019. The T.I.P.
started around 1:40 p.m. and concluded around 4:45 p.m.
He had deposed that Witness Sri Gopal Borah identified all 32 suspects in the first
round. In the second round, he identified all suspects except Sri Sanjib Rajowar and Sri
Suresh Rajowar. In the third round, this witness identified all 32 suspects. And witness Sri
Paban Garh and Sri Jiban Tanti identified all 32 suspects in all three rounds. Also, witness Sri
Pabitra Sahu could not identify Sri Kartick Bhumij, Sri Sanjoy Rajowar (Taklu), and Sri Rinku in
the first round.
60. PW-51/Diganta Das had deposed to the effect that he had seven years expertise in
the field of Finger Print. On 11.09.2019, he was working as Finger print Expert, State Finger
Print Bureau, CID, Assam, Ulubari, Guwahati. On that day, he received one sealed parcel from
the Director, FSL, Kahilipara, Guwahati-7, in connection with Teok under Sections Nil dated
P.S. Case 434/2019 No. 302/341/342/427/506/143/144/147/148 of IPC read with Section
149/186 of IPC and read with Section 4 of Assam Medicare Service Persons and Medicare
Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence & Damage to Property) Act, 2011 which was sent
by the Additional Superintendent of Police [Headquarter], Jorhat, by his memo No.
JHT/V/19/7426 dated Jorhat the 10.09.2019. Our Director received 2 [two] exhibits. For
finger print expert opinion REF:- Teok P.S. Case No. 434/2019 dated Nil under
Sections 302/341/342/427/506/143/144/147/148 of IPC read with Section 149/186 of IPC
and read with Section 4 of Assam Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions
(Prevention of Violence & Damage to Property) Act, 2011 & Ref. No. JHT/V/19/7426, Dated,
Jorhat the 10.09.2019.
Reference of Exhibits:-
1). Questioned Chance Finger Prints collected on a glass piece marked as ‘Exhibit-C’.
2). Specimen Finger prints of Sri Sanjay Rajowar, Aged-21 years, Son of Late Babu Rajowar,
Resident of Major Line, Teok Tea Estate, P.S. Teok, District- Jorhat.
Page No.# 57/97
In above reference, the Questioned Chance Finger Prints marked as ‘C-1’ on
the ‘Exhibit-C’ is examined and furnished Finger Print Opinion.
Result of Examination:-Exhibit-36 is the Specimen Finger prints of accused Sri Sanjay Rajowar
[left hand], aged 21 years, Son of Late Babu Rajowar, Resident of Major Line, Teok Tea
Estate, P.S. Teok, District-Jorhat, contained in 05 [five] pages.
Exhibit-36 (A) is the thumb impression of right hand of Sri Sanjay Rajowar which is
marked as ‘S-1’.
Material Exhibit-21 is the broken piece of glass where we find the Chance Finger print of
accused Sri Sanjay Rajowar which is marked as ‘Exhibit- C1 ‘ in his report.
During cross-examination, he denied of not properly examining the Finger prints and
had submitted a fake report.
61. PW-52, Jiban Kurmi had deposed to the effect that on 31.08.2019, around 4 p.m.,
he was in his official quarter at Teok Tea Estate. On that day, their official staff Sri Debo Jyoti
Baruah, informed him over telephone that some of the labourers were assaulting our Dr.
Deben Dutta at Teok Tea Estate Garden Hospital. He immediately rushed towards the hospital
with scooty and after reaching the hospital, he parked his scooty outside the Teok Tea Estate
Garden Hospital. Thereafter, he went inside the hospital campus and found many people on
the verandah of the hospital and also the chamber of Dr. Deben Dutta. While he was trying to
enter into the hospital at that time, someone pushed him on the verandah and he fell on the
ground. He sustained injury over his hand and back. Then he saw Sri Manoj Gogoi, Senior
Manager and the Assistant Manager Sri Mukta Jyoti Baruah entering into the hospital campus.
There were about 100/150 people inside the hospital and the verandah. He then returned
back to his official quarter with his scooty. Thereafter, alongwith Sri Satyajit Hazarika, he went
to Teok FRU for medical treatment, after that he returned back to his residence. Then he saw
Dr. Deben Dutta being taken in a police vehicle to the hospital for treatment. Thereafter, he
again went to Teok Tea Estate Garden Hospital and there he had found local people along
Page No.# 58/97
with Sri Samen Kundu and Sri Mukta Jyoti Baruah. It was 7 o’clock at that time he came to
know from Assistant Manager Sri Mukta Jyoti Baruah and Sri Samen Kundu about the death
of Dr. Deben Dutta at Jorhat Medical College & Hospital.
He had also deposed that when he reached the verandah of the Teok T.E. Garden Hospital,
at that time some people were assaulting the Doctor but he did not see the persons who had
assaulted the Doctor at the relevant point of time. He also saw the accused standing trial
now in the verandah of the Teok T.E. Garden Hospital and also inside the hospital compound.
He had heard assaulting Dr. Deben Dutta by the people inside his chamber but he did not
witness the incident of assault.
In his cross-examination he stated that his statement to the police was recorded 4-5 days
after the incident. He couldn’t recall if he told the Investigating Officer the name of his
assaulter on the day of the occurrence.
He had stated to the effect that he did not know the names of the person whom he was
seeing in the Court in front of the camera but he had seen them in the hospital verandah.
(On being asked the following accused persons told their names i.e Sri Sivcharan Mahili, Sri
Siba Mahil, Sri Pritam Majli, Sri Milan Rajowar, Sri Kalicharan mahili,Arjun Majhi, Rinku Bakti,
Sri Jabra Majhi). He also saw the accused Sri Upen Bhumij near the Doctor’s chamber door.
He had also deposed to the effect that he saw the accused Sri Sanjay Rajowar in front of the
camera in the hospital verandah. He had also deposed that he saw the accused persons
whose names he did not know near/infront of the door of the chamber of the Doctor. (on
being asked the accused persons told their names as Ratul Rajowar and Sri Sanjay Rajowar,
Sri Sanjib Rajowar).
He had also stated to the effect that the saw the following accused persons who were
present in the varanda of the hospital, namely accused Sri Debeswar Rajowar, Sri Manoj
Majhi, Sri Sanju Majhi, Sri Ajay Majhi, Sri Kartick Bhumij, Sri Rameswar Bhumij.
He had also stated to the effect that he saw the following accused persons near the door of
the Doctor’s chamber namely Sri Suresh Rajowar, Sri Rinku Majhi. He did not see the rest of
the accused persons he had seen in the camera on that day.
He had also stated that he was at the hospital for approximately 30-50 minutes to an
hour and saw people leaving. For about an hour he was near the place of occurance and the
saw the accused persons whom he had named in the Court in the hospital verandah and near
the Doctor’s chamber and that he did not see who had assaulted Dr. Deben Dutta on the day
of the occurrence.
62. PW-53/ Md. Abdus Sattar had deposed to the effect that on 30.09.2019, he was
working as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat. On 02.09.2019, some of the accused
persons of Teok P.S. Case No. 434/2019 were produced before him. On 06.09.2019, the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat, entrusted him to record the statements of
Page No.# 59/97
witnesses namely, (1) Sri Manoj Das, (2) Sri Rupam Saikia, (3) Sri Gopal Bora, (4) Sri Paban
Garh, (5) Sri Jiban Tanti, (6) Sri Pabitra Sahu, (7) Sri Raju Bank under Section 164 of Cr. P.C.
On that day, the record was put up before him but on that same day, the I.O. had verbally
appealed before him that due to security reasons, witnesses could not be produced before
him on that day. Thereafter, on 07.09.2019, all the aforesaid seven numbers of witnesses
were produced before him and he recorded their respective statements under Section 164 of
Cr. P.C. in his official chamber. None of the aforesaid seven numbers of witnesses were
literate as such he put their R.T.I. on their deposition sheets.
Exhibit-48 is the statement of witness Sri Pabitra Sahu and Exhibit-48 (1) to Exhibit-48 (3)
are his respective signatures in the aforesaid statement of Sri Pabitra Sahu.
Exhibit-49 is the statement of witness Sri Raju Barik and Exhibit-49 (1) to Exhibit-49 (3) are
his respective signatures in the aforesaid statement of Sri Raju Barik.
Exhibit-50 is the statement of witness Sri Rupam Saikia and Exhibit-50 (1) to Exhibit- 50 (5)
are his his respective signatures in the aforesaid statement of Sri Rupam Saikia.
Exhibit-51 is the statement of witness Sri Gopal Bora and Exhibit-51 (1) to Exhibit- 51 (4) are
his his respective signatures in the aforesaid statement of Sri Raju Barik.
Exhibit-52 is the statement of witness Sri Paban Garh and Exhibit-52 (1) to Exhibit- 52 (4)
are his respective signatures in the aforesaid statement of Sri Raju Barik.
Exhibit-53 is the statement of witness Sri Jiban Tanti and Exhibit-53 (1) to Exhibit- 53 (2) are
his respective signatures in the aforesaid statement of Sri Raju Barik.
Exhibit-54 is the statement of witness Sri Manoj Das and Exhibit-54 (1) to Exhibit- 54 (5) are
his respective signatures in the aforesaid statement of Sri Raju Barik.
He had deposed that after recording the statements of the above-named witnesses, he had
read over the same to them and thereafter he had taken their respective thumb impressions
over their respective statements. After recording the statements of the above-named
witnesses, he handed over them to the investigating officer of the case.
In his cross-examination, he had stated that before recording their statements, he read over
the contents of the ejahar to all the witnesses but he did not reflected the same in their
statements.
He stated had that nothing was recorded in his order-sheet and in the respective
statements of witnesses as to whether he had put any questions to any of the witnesses.
After recording the statement of the witnesses, he read over the same to each of the
witnesses and after that they put their respective thumb impressions on their depositions
willfully before him.
63. PW-54/Sankar Chandra Rabha had deposed to the effect that on 11.09.2019, he
was working as Scientific Officer, Serology Division, Directorate of Forensic Science,
Page No.# 60/97
Kahilipara, Guwahati. On that day, he received a parcel through the Director in connection
with Teok P.S. Case No. 434/2019 under Sections 302/341/342/427/506/143/144/147/148 of
IPC read with Sections 149/186 of IPC; read with Section 4 of Assam Medical Service Person
& Medical Service Institution [Prevention of Violence & Damage of Property] Act, 2011.
He had further deposed to the effect that he received four parcels wherein there were
four exhibits. After opening the parcel, the following articles namely i) one blue colured
revolving chair marked as “A” wrapped woth polythene suspected to contain stain blood.
Marked by him as Sero-4290-A. Material was exhibited as Exhibit-7. ii) One wooden stick ( as
stated to be table leg) marked as suspected to contain blood stain. Marked by him as Sero-
4290-B. Material was exhibited as Exhibit-8. iii) One small broken glass piece suspected to
contain stain of blood. Marked by him as Sero-4290-C. Material was exhibited as Exhibit-21.
iv) One yellow colour big size seal envelope marked as “D” with one grey colour long pant
with belt suspected to contain stain of blood which was marked by him as Sero-4290-D.
Material was exhibited as Exhibit-34.
Result of the examination was that Sero-4290-A, Sero-4290-B, Sero-4290-C, Sero-4290-D
gave positive test for human blood of group “O”. His report was Exhibited as exhibit-56.
Cross examination was declined.
64. PW-55, Rupam Lachit had deposed to the effect that on 11.09.2019, he was working
as Scientific Officer, Toxicology Division, Directorate of Forensic Science, Kahilipara, Guwahati.
On that day, he received a parcel through the Director in connection with. Teok P.S. Case No.
434/2019 under Sections 302/341/ 342/427/506/143/144/147/148 of IPC read with Sections
149/186 of IPC; read with Section 4 of Assam Medical Service Person & Medical Service
Institution [Prevention of Violence & Damage of Property] Act, 2011, which he received from
his In-charge.
The parcel consisted of 3 (three) exhibits in three sealed plastic jars enclosed in a sealed
carton box with cloth cover which was sealed with the seal impression of Additional S.P.,
Jorhat, Assam.
Description of Articles:-
1). One plastic jar containing stomach with its contents which were marked by him as Tox-
742/19 (a).
2). One plastic jar containing portion of liver and half of each kidney which were marked by
him Tox-742/19 (b).
3). One plastic jar containing sample of preservatives, i.e., saturated solution of common salt
which were marked by him as Tox-7429/19 [c].
The above-mentioned articles were found to be sealed with the seal impression of
Department of Forensic Medicine, Jorhat Medical College & Hospital.
Result of Examination:-
Page No.# 61/97
No poison was detected in the Exhibit Nos. Tox-742/19 [a], Tox- 742/19 [b] and Tox-742/19
[c].
Exhibit-57 is the covering letter issued by Directorate of Forensic Science, Assam and Exhibit-
57 (1) is the signature of Sri Gajendra Nath Deka, Director-cum-Chemical Examiner to the
Government of Assam which I know.
Exhibit-58 is his report wherein Exhibit-58 (1) is his signature.
Cross examination was declined by the learned defense counsel.
65. PW-56, Sri Dipankar Gogoi had deposed to the effect that on 31.08.2019, he was
working as Officer-in-charge, Teok P.S. On that day, at about 3/3.30 p.m., he came towards
Jorhat to attend the meeting in the S.P. Office, Jorhat and when he reached Kenduguri Bye-
Pass, he received one phone call from one Sri Sarangapani Saikia, reporter of Web-portal
[N.E. News], and one local reporter to the effect that law & order situation has arisen at
Teok Tea Garden Hospital and in the Garden Hospital some people were assaulting the
garden staff of the Teok Tea Estate. Then, S.I. of Police Khanindra Nath and A.S.I. Apurba
Kalita were directed by him to proceed towards the place of occurrence, i.e., Teok Tea
Garden Hospital. In the meantime, he received several phone calls from other persons and
then he informed the S.P., Jorhat and Addl. S.P., Jorhat and with their permission, he
returned back to Teok P.S. He then informed the In-charges of Lahdoigarh, Selenghat and
Bamunpukhuri Outposts to move towards the place of occurrence and also instructed one
Constable Sri Diganta Kalita, to inform the 108 Ambulance and to move to the place of
occurrence. He also asked A.S.I. Tarun Sarmah [DSB] to inform about the incident to the
Executive Magistrate.
He had deposed that when he returned back to Teok P.S. on the way, he went to
Lahdoigarh O.P. and took along with him S.I. Nurtaz Ali along with some police personnel to
Teok Tea Estate. When he reached at Teok Tea Garden Hospital, he found about 200/250
people at the Tea Garden Hospital. Then he tried to make the people there understand and
he somehow managed to enter into the Garden Hospital from the back side and there he
found one person lying on a stretcher whose name was Sri Samra Majhi and also found
another person sitting on a chair whom his staff identified him as the Doctor of the aforesaid
Garden Hospital. He noticed his condition serious and blood oozing out from his right leg.
Then he noticed the mob gathered there sent back the 108 Ambulance. Then he asked A.S.I.
Nurtaz Ali to arrange his vehicle. Then he asked Nurtaz Ali to cope with the mob, and in the
meantime, they will try to take the Doctor in his vehicle from the backside of the Garden
Hospital. Thereafter, Nurtaz Ali took the Doctor in the police vehicle to Jorhat Medical College
& Hospital for medical treatment. After evacuation of the Doctor from the hospital, the mob
pacified.
He had deposed that on evacuation of the Doctor, he came to know that on that day, at
about 2.20 p.m., one Samra Majhi, who fell down and sustained head injury was taken to the
Garden Hospital by 6/7 persons. Then, the dresser of the hospital namely Sri Subhash
Rajowar informed the Staff Nurse Smt. Ranjula Hazarika Borah. The staff nurse came and
Page No.# 62/97
informed Dr. Deben Dutta that one patient had come to the hospital. In the meantime, Dr.
Deben Dutta arrived at the hospital and then the mob started assaulting him and threatening
him and confined him inside his chamber. Thereafter, the mob became unruly. Then Subhash
Rajowar informed the Garden Manager about the incident. Thereafter, the mob chased away
the staff nurse Smt. Ranjula Hazarika from the Garden Hospital. In the meantime, the
Welfare Officer of the tea garden arrived at the place of incident and the Welfare Officer was
also chased away by the mob. In the meantime, the mob started assaulting the Doctor. UBC
Debasish Baruah, ABC Ghanakanta Mili, S.I. Khanindra Nath and some BSF personnels
arrived at the place of occurrence and they tried to interfere the mob in assaulting the
Doctor in the Doctor’s chamber. On arriving at the place of occurrence, they have found
30/35 people inside the Doctor’s chamber assaulting the Doctor and the Garden Manager
and some of the people of tea garden tried to interfere the same. The police personnel then
tried to take away the Doctor outside the room but could not succeed as the mob prevented
them from taking the Doctor outside his room. As the police personnel were less in number
than the mob present there but they somehow managed to get the mob out of the room of
the Doctor and tried to save him.
He had deposed that at that time, Sri Gautam Baruah, UBC and Sri Diganta Kalita, UBC also
arrived at the place of occurrence and tried to control the mob. In the meantime, Sri
Bhaskar Jyoti Rajbongshi, Circle Officer, Teok, also arrived at the place of occurrence, and he
also tried to pacify the mob. Thereafter, ASI Apurba Kalita alongwith BSF personnels arrived
there and they also tried to control the mob. In the meantime, one 108 Ambulance arrived
at the Garden Hospital but the aforesaid vehicle was chased away by the mob. Thereafter,
S.I. Keshab Mahanta of Teok P.S. alongwith BSF personnel arrived at there and they also
tried to control the mob. In the meantime, he also arrived at the place of occurrence. Then
he controlled the mob and sent the Doctor Deben Dutta to the JMCH in his police vehicle
through the backside of the Garden Hospital. When he was present at the place of
occurrence, at about 6.30 p.m., he received information from Murtaz Ali over phone that Dr.
Deben Dutta was declared dead at Jorhat Medical College & Hospital as ‘brought dead’.
Thereafter, he had cordoned off the hospital and he had seized the articles. He took
photograph of the articles lying at the place of occurrence and the articles damaged by the
mob.
He had also deposed that it is to be mentioned here that on receipt of the phone call
about the incident, he informed at the Teok P.S. and then S.I. Khanindra Nath has recorded
G.D. Entry No. 526 dated 31/08/2019 at about 4.08 p.m.
He had further deposed that he also prepared the Sketch Map of the place of occurrence
with index and also seized the articles related to the place of occurrence. Having seized the
articles, he examined the seizure witnesses and they gave their respective signatures in the
seizure-list. Thereafter, he returned back to Teok P.S.
Thereafter, he obtained the certified copy of the G.D. Entry from the Sheristadar of the police
station. In the meantime, Sri Manoj Gogoi, Garden Manager, gave an F.I.R. at the police
about the incident and then he closed the MCD vide G.D. Entry No. 534 dated 31.08.2019.
Page No.# 63/97
Exhibit-59 is the certified copy of the extract G.D. Entry No. 526 to 533. Exhibit-59 (1) to
Exhibit-59 (3) are the signatures of ASI Sarif Hussain who certified the G.D. entries.
Exhibit-60 is the certified copy of the G.D. Entry No. 534 dated 31/08/2019 which were
certified by him. Exhibit-60 (1) to Exhibit-60 (6) are his signatures.
Exhibit-61 to Exhibit-80 are the various photographs taken by him of the incident at the P.O
All the photographs were taken by Vivo mobile phone on 31.08.2019 from 6.46 p.m. to 6.54
p.m. and the prints were taken out from the computer and printer of his police station.
Exhibit-81 is the Sketch Map of the place of occurrence showing the verandah of the Garden
Hospital. Exhibit-81 (1) is his signature therein.
Exhibit-82 is the Sketch Map of the Doctor’s chamber of the place of occurrence of the
Garden Hospital. Exhibit-82 (1) is his signature therein.
He had also deposed that on the same day at about 7 p.m., he also seized 30 [thirty]
numbers of Material Exhibit-1 to Material Exhibit-30 vide seizure-list [Exhibit-1]. Exhibit-1 (10)
is his signature therein. He had seized the above-mentioned articles in presence of witnesses.
After seizing the articles preparing seizure-list, he kept the articles at the Malkhana of Teok
P.S. After receiving the ejahar from Sri Manoj Gogoi, Senior Manager, Teok T.E., at about
10.10. p.m., at Teok P.S., he registered the same vide Teok P.S. Case No. 434/2019 under
Sections 302/341/342/427/506/143/ 144/147/148 of IPC read with Section 149/186 of IPC;
read with Section 4 of The Assam Medicare Service Persons and Medicine Service Institutions
[Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property] Act, 2011. He recorded the statement of
the first informant at the police station itself. Exhibit-2 as the F.I.R. in 05 (five) pages wherein
Exhibit-2 (8) is his signature. Exhibit-2 (6) is the printed form of F.I.R. and Exhibit-2 (9) is his
signature.
He had further deposed that on the next day, he visited the place of occurrence, examined
the witnesses as per provision of Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and arrested the accused persons and
thereafter, forwarded them to the Court. On visiting the place of occurrence on the next day,
he found 07 (seven) witnesses who have witnessed the occurrence but he did not record
their statements as they expressed apprehension/threat to their lives. He recorded their
statements of the said 07 (seven) witnesses under the Witness Protection Scheme on
05.09.2019. He arrested 22 (twenty-two) accused persons and forwarded them to the Court,
on 01.09.2019. Thereafter, Nurtaz Ali, S.I. of Police, Teok P.S., had seized the articles of Dr.
Deben Dutta. He had got the SCD No.1 from S.I. Nurtaz Ali wherefrom he found that Dr.
Deben Dutta was taken to Jorhat Medical College & Hospital and the wearing apparels of the
Doctor were seized by the I.O. vide seizure-list [Exhibit-4] in presence of other witnesses.
And, after getting the information about the death of Dr. Deben Dutta he received the
Cadaveor Report from Jorhat Medical College & Hospital which is exhibited as Exhibit-5. Md.
Nurtaz Ali also made prayer to the District Magistrate for calling an Executive Magistrate for
holding inquest over the dead body of Dr. Deben Dutta. On the prayer made by the I.O.,
Executive Magistrate Sri Rajib Gogoi, Circle Officer, Attached to West Revenue Circle, Jorhat,
Page No.# 64/97
arrived at Jorhat Medical College & Hospital and held inquest over the dead body of Dr.
Deben Dutta. Exhibit-83 is the order of the District Magistrate to the Executive Magistrate to
hold inquest over the dead body. Exhibit-3 is the Inquest Report.
He had deposed that on the next day, i.e., 02.09.2019, he arrested 08 (eight) more accused
persons and forwarded them to the Court. On 04.09.2019, he received another F.I.R. from
the son of Dr. Deben Dutta [deceased] namely Sri Manjit Dutta. As the case has been already
registered, he treated the same F.I.R. as statement and enclosed the same with the case
diary. Exhibit-32 is the said F.I.R. submitted by Sri Manjit Dutta wherein Exhibit-32 (2) is his
signature. On 04.09.2019, he arrested the accused persons namely Sri Manoj Majhi and Sri
Rinku Majhi and forwarded them to the Court.
He had also deposed that thereafter, he had made a prayer before the Court for protection of
some of the witnesses under the Witness Protection Scheme. An interim order was passed by
the Court to conceal the identity of the said witnesses under the Witness Protection Scheme.
On 05.09.2019, he recorded the statement of the witnesses under the Witness Protection
Scheme. On 06.09.2019, the 07 (seven) witnesses under the Witness Protection Scheme
were produced before the learned Court. On 07.09.2019, the Hon’ble Court recorded the
statement of the aforesaid witnesses as per provision of Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he
collected the viscera of Dr. Deben Dutta after his post-mortem examination and seized the
same preparing seizure-list and also collected the post-mortem report of the deceased. After
seizing the viscera, he produced the same before the learned Court. On the next day, he sent
the viscera to the F.S.L., Guwahati, for expert’s opinion.
He had deposed that on 10.09.2019, he made a prayer before the learned Court for
according permission to collect finger prints of accused Sri Sanjay Rajowar, son of Late Babu
Rajowar and on being allowed by the learned Court, collected the finger prints of the accused
Sri Sanjay Rajowar from the Central Jail, Jorhat, and then along with the seized articles, he
sent the same to the Bureau of Finger prints, Assam, for examination, Exhibit-35 & Exhibit-36
are the finger prints of accused Sri Sanjay Rajowar, son of Late Babu Rajowar, in 02 (two)
sets. Exhibit-35 (11) & Exhibit-36 (11) are his signatures therein. He also sent the blue
colored revolving chair with bloodstain [Material Exhibit-7], Material Exhibit-8, Material
Exhibit-21 and Material Exhibit-34 to the F.S.L., Kahilipara, Guwahati, for expert’s opinion.
Vide Exhibit-8, he seized vial containing blood sample of 2ml of Dr. Deben Dutta which were
collected during post-mortem examination of Dr. Deben Dutta and vial containing blood
sample of 5ml of Dr. Deben Dutta which were collected during post-mortem examination
[EDTA] and plastic jar containing the visceras of Dr. Deben Dutta and plastic jar containing
preservative of common salt which were sent to the Director, F.S.L., Guwahati, vide Exhibit-84
(containing in 05 (five) pages). These were sent by Special Messenger by the Addl. S.P.
(Headquarter), Jorhat, Sri Prakash Sonowal to the Director, F.S.L., Guwahati, for ascertaining
the facts as mentioned in Exhibit-84. Exhibit-84 (1) to Exhibit-84 (5) are the signatures of Sri
Prakash Sonowal, Addl. S.P. (Headquarter), Jorhat, which he knew.
He had deposed that on 13.09.2019, he got information that one Sri Duleswar Majhi was also
Page No.# 65/97
eyewitness of the case and he could identify the accused persons. He made a prayer before
the Court for holding T.I.P. (Test Identification Parade) for identification of the accused
persons by the aforesaid witness. Altogether, 08 (eight) witnesses came forward and on the
same day the Hon’ble Court fixed the day for holding T.I.P. at Central Jail, Jorhat, on
16.09.2019 & 17.09.2019. Accordingly, T.I.P. was held at Central Jail, Jorhat on the
aforementioned dates. Sri Riju Kumar Saikia and Sri Utpal Jyoti Khound, journalists, have
recorded the video of the occurrence and then he had issued notice to them to furnish the
videos. Vide Exhibit-9, I asked Sri Utpal Jyoti Khound to produce the video in C.D. as per
Section 65 (B) of the Evidence Act. The same was received by Sri Utpal Jyoti Khound. Exhibit-
9 (2) is his signature. Accordingly, Sri Utpal Jyoti Khound handed over to him 18 (eighteen)
numbers of compact discs vide Material Exhibit-35 to Material Exhibit-52. He also provided
requisite certificate under Section 65 (B) of the Evidence Act against each of the Material
Exhibits. Exhibit-10 to Exhibit-27 are the certificates issued by Sri Utpal Jyoti Khound,
journalist.
He had deposed that he also issued a notice to Sri Riju Kumar Saikia, journalist, to provide
video clips of the fateful day of the occurrence on which Dr. Deben Dutta was brutally
assaulted by the mob of Teok T.E. Accordingly, Sri Riju Kumar Saikia handed over to him 02
(two) numbers of compact discs vide Material Exhibit-53 and Material Exhibit-54. He also
provided requisite certificates under Section 65 (B) of the Evidence Act against each of the
Material Exhibits. Exhibit-29 to Exhibit- 30 are the certificates issued by Sri Utpal Jyoti
Khound, journalist.
After getting the compact discs, he also requested them not to destroy the original. Then he
called witness Sri Duleswar Majhi to identify the accused persons. Accordingly, he came to the
police station. He showed him the videos of the date of incident and accordingly he identified
the accused persons by their names & address. Thereafter, he took screen printing of the
videos wherein, witness Sri Duleswar Majhi identified the accused persons. He exhibited
Material Exhibit-55 to Material Exhibit-126 which is the photo print out of the accused
persons.
He had deposed that on 02.09.2019, he requested the Senior Medical Officer, Jorhat Police
Hospital, Jorhat to give opinion about the injuries of Sri Sanjay Rajowar, son of Late Babu
Rajowar, Sri Ratul Rajowar and Sri Rinku Majhi, as there was strike of Doctors at Jorhat
Medical College & Hospital on that day due to murder of Dr. Deben Dutta on 31.08.2019.
Then the Senior Medical Officer has given opinion that he has found cut injury over the left
palm of accused Sri Sanjay Rajowar of size 2″ x 2″ x 1 inch, not active bleeding. Accused
Sri Ratul Rajowar had injury over his right little finger. Accused Sri Rinku Majhi, one cut
injury seen on the left arm approximately of size 10″ and 16 stitches were given over the
aforesaid injuries. Exhibit-85 is the requisition for medical examination of aforesaid accused
persons and report thereof issued by Dr. N.N. Rahman, the Senior Medical Officer, Jorhat
Police Hospital. Exhibit-85 (1) as the signature of Dr. N.N. Rahman, which he knew. Exhibit-
85 (2) to Exhibit-85 (4) as his signatures.
He had deposed that on 03.09.2019, he forwarded the three accused persons to the Senior
Page No.# 66/97
Medical Officer, Jorhat Police Hospital wherein, the Doctor examined accused Sri Siba
Mahali and found one cut injury over right middle finger by glass. No active bleeding seen.
One accused Sri Kalanag Majhi was found with one cut injury over his right leg. Exhibit-86
is the requisition for Medical examination and report thereof issued by Dr. N.N. Rahman,
the Senior Medical Officer, Jorhat Police Hospital. Exhibit-86 (1) as the signature of Dr. N.N.
Rahman, which he knew. Exhibit-86 (2) to Exhibit-86 (3) as his signatures. It is evident
that all the aforementioned accused persons received those injuries by glass pieces as they
were present and involved in the incident of assault of Dr. Deben Dutta.
He had deposed that thereafter, on completion of investigation and having been
found a well established case under Sections 302/341/342/427/506/143/ 144/147/148 of
IPC read with Section 149/186 of IPC and read with Section 4 of Assam Medicare Service
Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence & Damage to Property)
Act, 2011, he laid charge-sheet against the accused persons namely, Sri Sanjay Rajowar,
son of Late Babu Rajowar, Sri Sanjib Rajowar, Sri Suresh Rajowar, Sri Ajay Majhi, Sri
Debeswar Rajowar, Son of Late Samlal Rajowar, Sri Upendra Bhumij @ Kishore Bhumiz, Sri
Ratul Rajowar, Sri Bablu Rajowar, Sri Anil Majhi, Sri Arjun Majhi, Sri Arun Majhi, Sri Bijay
Rajowar, Sri Bolin Rajowar, Sri Dipak Rajowar, Sri Gulu Dev Majhi, Sri Hari Majhi, Sri Milan
Rajowar, Sri Pritam Majhi, Sri Pritom Majhi @ Sotu Bhai, Sri Rinku Majhi @ Batu, Sri Michilal
Majhi @ Jabra, Sri Sanju Majhi, Sri Sibcharan Mahali @ Batu, Sri Debeswar Rajowar @
Deba, Son of Late Jogeswar Rajowar, Sri Sanjay Rajowar @ Toklu, Sri Deba Rajowar, Sri
Rahimsh Bhumij, Sri Kalicharan Mahali, Sri Kartick Bhumij, Sri Rahul Rajowar, Sri Rinku
Bakti, Sri Siba Mahali @ Bijit and Sri Kalanag Mahali to stand trial in the Court under the
said sections of law. The investigation was conducted by him under the supervision of
Special Investigation Team headed by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Easter Region,
Assam cum-Head of Special Investigation team [SIT], Dr. G.V. Sivaprasad, (2) Sri Vaibhav
C. Nimbalkar, IPS, S.P., Jorhat-cum- Himmber of Special Investigation Team, and (3) Sri
Prakash Sonowal, APS, Add. S.P.[HQ], Jorhat. Exhibit-87 is the charge-sheet containing 39
(thirty-nine) pages and Exhibit-87 (1) to Exhibit-87 (39) are his signatures thereon. Exhibit-
87 (40) is the signature of Sri Prakash Sonowal, Addl. S.P. (Headquarter), Jorhat, which he
knew. Exghibit-87 (41) is the signature of the then S.P., Jorhat, Sri Vaibhav C. Nimbalkar,
which he knew. Exhibit-87 (43) is the signature of Dr. G.V. Sivaprasad, Deputy Inspector
Page No.# 67/97
General of Police, Assam-cum-Head of the Special Investigation Team [SIT].
66. In his cross-examination, he had stated that he received the FIR on 31.08.2019 at
10:10 PM. He had admitted that he did not receive any FIR from the informant Sri Manoj
Gogoi, Senior Manager Teok T.E. nor did he examine him on the same day.
He had also stated that the first informant has mentioned the name of 30 (thirty) accused
in the F.I.R. Apart from those 30 [thirty] accused, he arrested two more accused namely
Sri Kalanag Majhi and Sri Manoj Majhi on 03.09.2019 & 04.09.2019 respectively, on the
basis of investigation made by him in connection with the case. In the statement under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the witnesses, he did not mentioned the date on which he had
recorded the statement of witnesses but he had mentioned the same in the case diary
and mentioned as annexures.
He had stated that on 31.08.2019, he examined witnesses namely, Sri Souhimn Kundu,
Sri Kalyanjit Bora and the informant Sri Manoj Gogoi, Senior Manager, Teok T.E. On
01.09.2019, he had examined witnesses namely, Sri Jiban Kurmi, Smt. Ranjula Hazarika
Borah, Sri Rabi Mahali, Sri Bikash Gowala, Sri Subhash Rajowar, Sri Dhiraj Mahali, Sri
Mohan Mahali, Sri Naresh Robidas, Sri Sarangapani Saikia, Sri Bhaskar Jyoti Rajbongshi,
Sri Khanindra Nath, Sri Debasish Baruah, Sri Ghana Kanta Mili, Sri Aditya Sow, Sri Kamal
Das, Sri Tarun Sarmah, Sri Bhubon Handique, Sri Diganta Kalita, Sri Gautam Baruah, Sri
Apurba Kalita, Sri Rabi Rajak, Sri Mridul Borah, Sri Keshab Mohan, Md. Nurtaj Ali, Sri
Ashok Sonar, Sri Atanu Goswami and Sri Padma Kanta Saikia.
In his cross examination, he had stated that on 02.09.2019, 03.09.2019, 04.09.2019, he
did not record statement of any witnesses. On 05.09.2019, he had examined witnesses
namely, Sri Manoj Das, Sri Rupam Saikia, Sri Paban Garh, Sri Gopal Borah, Sri Jiban Tanti,
Sri Pabitra Sahu and Sri Raju Barik. He had stated that on 13.09.2019, he examined Sri
Duleswar Majhi (PW-54) and he did not arrest any of the accused persons.
He had further stated that on 01.09.2019, he arrested accused namely, Sri Sanjay
Rajowar, Sri Sanjib Rajowar, Sri Suresh Rajowar, Sri Ajay Majhi, Sri Debeswar Rajowar, Sri
Upendra Bhumij, Sri Ratul Rajowar, Sri Bablu Rajowar, Sri Anil Majhi, Sri Arjun Majhi, Sri
Arun Majhi, Sri Bijay Rajowar, Sri Bolin Rajowar, Sri Dipak Rajowar, Sri Guludev Majhi, Sri
Hari Majhi, Sri Milan Rajowar, Sri Pritam Majhi, Sri Rinku Majhi, Sri Misilal Majhi, Sri Sanju
Majhi and Sri Sivcharan Mahali and on 03.09.2019, he arrested the accused namely, Sri
Debeswar Rajowar, Sri Kartick Bhumij, Sri Sanjay Rajowar, son of Late Gopi Rajowar, Sri
Kalicharan Mahali, Sri Rahimswar Bhumij, Sri Siva Mahali @ Bijit, Sri Rahul Rajowar and
Sri Kalanag Majhi and arrested the accused namely, Sri Manoj Majhi and Sri Rinku Bakti
on 04.09.2019.
He had further stated that he also collected the video footage on 14.09.2019 from Sri
Utpal Jyoti Khound and Sri Raju Kumar Saikia. Witness Sri Duleswar Majhi [PW-54] has
identified the accused persons in the video footage on 15.09.2019.
He had stated that he arrested all the accused persons prior to the identification of the
accused persons by witness Sri Duleswar Majhi (PW-54) on 15.09.2019. The two persons
who had furnished the video footage in connection with the murder of Dr. Deben Dutta
Page No.# 68/97
have given a certificate under Section 65-B of The Evidence Act, except that he had not
enquired about the authenticity and storage of the same.
He had also stated that he did not seize the mobile phones by which the two persons had
recorded the video of the incident of assault upon Dr. Deben Dutta. From confidential
source, he came to know the presence of 07 (seven) witnesses protected under Witness
Protection Scheme at the place of occurrence.
He had denied the suggestion that he kept the 07 (seven) witnesses protected under
Witness Protection Scheme, under his custody, but he kept them at Jorhat P.S. as they
complained about their security check. He had stated that he did not kept the witnesses
namely, Sri Gopal Borah [PW-36] for 02 [two] days in police custody, Sri Rupam Saikia
[PW-37] for 04 [four] days in police custody, Sri Paban Garh [PW-38] for 07 [seven] days
in police custody, Sri Jiban Tanti [PW-39] for 07 [seven] days in police custody, Sri Raju
Barik [PW-40] in police custody for 10 [ten] days. He denied the suggestion that he kept
them with him and tutored them. He had denied the suggestion that the above witnesses
have not asked for police protection and there was security threat to them.
He had denied the suggestions that there was no any threat to the 07 [seven] witnesses
who were protected under Witness Protection Scheme.
67. In his cross examination had also stated as follows regarding his examination of the
witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C : Witness Sri Souhimn Kundu [PW-1] during his statement
under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. did not state before him that he witnessed Sri Manoj Majhi, Sri
Kalanag Majhi, Sri Ratul Rajowar @ Hasim, Sri Kartick Bhumij and Sri Sanju Majhi at the place
of occurrence.
He had admitted the suggestion that witness Sri Souhimn Kundu [PW-1] stated before
him that “the Doctor will not be allowed to go for treatment and we want him to die out
here”.
Witness Sri Kailyanjeet Borah [PW-2] during his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. did
not state before him that “on 31.08.2019 while he was present in his office chamber located
at the factory campus, Teok T.E., he was informed by Sri Manoj Gogoi, Senior Manager, Teok
T.E., that he was informed by someone that Dr. Deben Dutta was assaulted at Garden Tea
Hospital; that he along with Sri Arup Borgohain, Senior Manager, Agri Business, Teok T.E.
went to the Teok Tea Garden Hospital; that on reaching Teok T.E. hospital, he saw a
gathering of about 150/200 people shouting and rioting on the verandah of tea Garden
Hospital as well as in the car parking area; that he saw Sri Jibon Kurmi, Welfare Officer of
Teok T.E. standing near the jeep of the Garden Manager Sri Manoj Gogoi, visibly shaken and
bleeding from his right elbow; that then he thought that he should not go inside but he
should inform the police; that someone told him that police had already been informed but
yet to arrive; that he saw Sri Souhimn Kundu, Assistant Manager, Khanikar Dalim Division,
Teok T.E., coming in a motorcycle; that then with him he went to Teok P.S.; that on reaching
there, one police staff informed them that police party had already left for Teok T.E.; that
when they returned to Teok T.E., one way he informed Sri Sanjay Singh, General Manager of
Teok T.E. about the incident; that he advised him to be in the office campus and not to go to
the hospital campus so that he can keep contact with his senior officials; that so he got down
Page No.# 69/97
near his factory gate and Sri Souman Kundu went to the hospital; that he kept enquiring
through telephone what was going on inside the hospital and came to know that Dr. Deben
Dutta had been cut on one of his legs and he was profusely bleeding; that after sometime he
again called and came to know that 108 Ambulance had arrived at the Garden Hospital but
he was not been allowed to enter; that on hearing this, he called Additional S.P. Sri Imdad Ali
and informed him that more additional party would be required to take out and send the Dr.
Deben Dutta to the hospital for medical treatment; that he assured him of his help; that after
sometime, he saw one vehicle with full police personnel going towards the Garden Hospital
and that thereafter he came to know that police party could manage to taken Dr. Deben
Dutta out of the hospital and sent for medical treatment to Jorhat Medical College &
Hospital”.
Witness Sri Manoj Gogoi [PW-3] during his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. stated
before him that “a crowd of about 40 people illegally entered the Garden Hospital and
threatened the hospital chowkidar Sri Suresh Robidas and also threatened the nurse Smt.
Ranjul Bora and stopped the hospital dresser Sri Subhash Rajowar from trying to protect the
Doctor and later, Sri Jibon Kurmi, the Welfare Officer also came to help Dr. Deben Dutta but
he was also assaulted and sent away”. This witness also stated before him that “Dr. Deben
Dutta, other than fist blows and kicks was also assaulted by broken glass pieces”.
Witness Sri Debasish Baruah [PW-10] during his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. did
not state before him that “in order to prevent the crowd from further entering into the room,
he along with his colleague Sri Ghanakanta Mili as well as one BSF were blocking the door”.
Witness Md. Nurtaz Ali [PW-13] during his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. did not
state before him that “he saw pieces of broken glass panes of windows and doors lying in the
room of Dr. Deben Dutta; that though 108 Ambulance was called but same was not allowed
to get inside to take Dr. Deben Dutta to the hospital for medical treatment and that injured
Dr. Deben Dutta was in a sub-conscious state”.
Witness Sri Mukta Jyoti Baruah [PW-28] during his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. did
not state before him that : “he alongwith one staff named Prakash Rajowar, blocked the back
door of the chamber; that the “crowd present inside the Doctor’s chamber pushed 2/3 police
personnel and they also stopped the police personnel from doing their duty that 30/40
persons who were already present inside the chamber, started assaulting Dr. Deben Dutta by
pushing away Sri Manoj Gogoi”; “that the condition of Dr. Deben Dutta was very bad as he
was punched in his face”.
This witness stated before him that ” one police officer folded trouser of Dr. Deben
Dutta which he was wearing and then he could see one cut mark on right thigh of Dr. Deben
Dutta where from blood was oozing out and in order to stop bleeding from the cut portion of
Dr. Deben Dutta, one police staff with the help of a saline pipe, he tied the cut portion; that
Sri Manoj Gogoi, Manager, went outside and requested the crowd to allow to take Dr. Deben
Dutta for medical attention, but no one listened to him, rather they were shouting that Dr.
Page No.# 70/97
Deben Dutta has to die here only; that as per direction of Sri Manoj Gogoi, Manager, he
stayed back at the Garden Hospital itself in order to find out the names of the persons
present in the crowd and to ascertain why the incident had taken place; that later on, on
enquiry, from Sri Souhimn Kundu he came to know that the whole incident had taken place
due to instigation by accused Sri Manoj Majhi .”
Witness Sri Manoj Das [PW-32] during his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
stated before him that “accused persons namely, Sri Rahimesh Bhumiz, Sri Taklu Rajowar @
Sanjay Rajowar, Sri Kartik Bhumiz and Sri Deba Rajowar @ Debeswar Rajowar, were shouting
and demanding that the Doctor Sir should be thrashed and assaulted; that accused persons
namely, Sri Sanjay Rajowar, Son of Late Babu Rajowar, Sri Ratul Rajowar and Sri Rinku Majhi
breaking the glass panes of doors and windows by giving blows and in the process, all of
them sustained cut injuries in their hands and that accused Sri Suresh Rajowar giving blows
to Dr. Deben Dutta and also that accused Sri Siba Mahali kicked Doctor Sir from his front
side”. This witness however, in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. did not state
before him that “he saw accused Sri Suresh Rajowar pushing & pulling the Welfare Officer;
that he, Deputy Manager and Sri Manoj Gogoi, Bor Manager, tried to restrain the persons
from thrashing/assaulting Dr. Deben Dutta Sir but they were not successful as they did not
listen tous; that accused persons namely, Sri Bablu Rajowar, Sri Sivcharan Mahali and Sri
Rahul Rajowar were pulling & pushing the police personnel “.
Witness Sri Gopal Bora [PW-36] during his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
stated before him that “the accused Sri Sanjay Rajowar, Son of Late Babu Rajowar, by
breaking the glass panes of windows and then with a broken piece of window glass pierced
into the right thigh of Dr. Deben Dutta Sir”.
This witness, however, during his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. did not state
before him that “accused Sri Rahul Rajowar pushed the police personnel and that accused
Bijit Mahali @ Sibawas pushed out of the Doctor’s chamber by the police “.
Witness Sri Rupam Saikia [PW-37] during his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
Page No.# 71/97
stated before him that “on the date of incident hearing shouts from the garden he went to
the place of incident but he did not state that he went to the garden to bring ration “. This
witness, however, during his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. did not state before him
that “when he arrived in the Garden Hospital outside he saw gathering of about 400/500
persons; that he entered inside the Garden Hospital; that 15/20 persons were present at the
Doctor’s chamber at the time of incident; that Sri Jintu Majhi, Sri Rahimsh Bhumij, Sri
Kulaguti Rajowar, Sri Bapai Rajowar were present but they came out when others started
assaulting Dr. Deben Dutta”.
He had stated that Sri Paban Garh[PW-38] during his statement under section 161
Cr.P.C stated before him that ” accused namely , Dipak Rajowas, Sri Kishore Bhumij, Sri
Misilal Majhi@ Jabra Majhi, Sri Ramesh Bhumji, Sanjay Rajowas@ Taklu were instigating
others to assault Dr. Deben Dutta”.
He admitted that the witness did not state before him the name of accused Sri Siba
Rajowar @ Bijit.
Sri Pabitra Sahu PW-41 during his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C ” accused namely
, Sri Arjun Majhi and Sri Rahimsh Bhumij shouted and instigated the people present there to
assault the Doctor.”
He admitted the suggestion that this witness did not state before him that “Arjun
Majhi was shouting to assult the Doctor” .
He had stated that Sri Utpal Khound PW-42 during his statement under section 161
Cr.P.C stated before him that ” he had submitted one certificate in lieu of different C.D’s of
the video footage of the incident”.
He had stated that regarding Samra Majhi’s death one U.D. case was registered but he
does not remember the number or the case diary.
Re- examination of PW-54
68. On re-examination, he had deposed to the effect that he produced 02 [two]
Page No.# 72/97
certificates as per provision of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act that day.
Exhibit-88 are the photographs (20 numbers) captured at the place of occurrence,
i.e., Teok Tea Estate Hospital, on 31.08.2019, and the same was generated from his
mobile hand set Nos. 9706738971 & 7002811211. Exhibit-88 (1) are his signatures.
Exhibit-89 are (1) the screen shot photographs (72 nos.) taken from the videos
provided by witnesses Sri Utpal Jyoti Khound and Sri Riju Kumar Saikia during the course
of investigation in the process of identification of the involved accused persons. The
screen shots were taken on 15.09.2019 which were annexed as Annexure-331 to 402 in
the original case diary. (2) Photographs (20 nos.) captured at the place of occurrence, i.e.,
Teok Tea Estate Hospital on 31.08.2019 which were generated from the computer set
which was under his control at the time of procuring photo-prints of the same. Exhibit-89
(1) is his signature.
Cross examination was declined by the learned defense counsel.
Sentence and reasons thereof of the learned Trail Court
69. The learned Trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution
witnesses passed the Judgment & Order dated 12.10.2020 and found the accused
persons guilty and convicted the appellant Sh. Sanjay Rajoawar under Section 302 IPC
and sentenced the appellant to death and pay a fine of pay Rs. 500/- The learned Trial
Court also found the accused along with the other 23 accused persons guilty under
section 302 r/w section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and also convicted and sentenced
him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default,
simple imprisonment for one month, rigorous imprisonment for two years under section
353 r/w section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for one year under
section 342 r/w section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for two
years under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for three
years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default simple imprisonment for one month
Page No.# 73/97
under section 4 of the Assam Medical Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions
(Prevention of Violence and damage to property) Act, 2011 along with other 22 accused
persons while the other accused persons were accordingly acquitted.
70. The learned Trial Court after recording the conviction took up the matter of sentence
hearing. The question before the Trial Court was about the punishment to be awarded for
offence of killing the Doctor by the appellant under Section 302 IPC.
71. The learned Trial Court had referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Bachan
Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (1980) 2 SCR 864, which dealt with constitutional
validity of death penalty for murder provided in Section 302 IPC and the sentencing
procedure embodied in Sub-section 3 of Section 354 of the CrPC and laid the following
propositions:
i) The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in the gravest cases of extreme
culpability;
ii) Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the ‘offender’ also require to be
taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the ‘crime’.
iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception . In other words death
sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether
inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and
provided, and only provided the potion to impose dentence of imprisonment for life cannot be
conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime anf all
the relevant circumstances.
iv) A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstance has to be accorded
full weghtage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating
circumstances before the option is exercised.
72. The learned trial Court also referred to Machhi Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported
in AIR 1983 SC 957, wherein in order to apply the guidelines laid out in Bachan Singh Vs.
State of Punjab (Supra) the following questions have to be asked:
Page No.# 74/97
(a) Is there something uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of
imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence?
(b) Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to impose
death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the mitigating
circumstances which speak in favour of the offender?
73. The learned Trial Court found that on a critical analysis and evaluation of the evidence
on the record in its entirety, found that accused Sanjoy Rajowar(A-1), S/o Babu Rajowar,
played the most crucial role in the entire occurrence. He was more aggressive amongst all the
accused. And even after he was chased out, he again made his way and assaulted. Dr. Deben
Dutta. Besides, causing injury No. (d), sharing common object with other accused, on the
persons of Dr. Deben Dutta, he also caused the Injury No.(a) on the right thigh of Dr. Deben
Dutta, which, according to medical evidence, alone is sufficient to cause death of a person in
the ordinary course of nature. He also attempted to assault police personnel (P.W.9) while he
tried to protect Dr. Deben Dutta from being assaulted. The accused tried to thwart the judicial
process by threatening the witnesses (P.W.39). He took lead part in assaulting Dr. Deben
Dutta. He chased away the 108 Ambulance along with other accused, which came to take Dr.
Deben Dutta to the Hospital. He also prevented P.W.17, one police personnel, in taking Dr.
Deben Dutta to Police vehicle for taking to Hospital. He has shown no remorse during the
period of occurrence and thereafter, and also during hearing on the point of sentence.
74. The learned trial Court found the mitigating factors with regards to the accused Sh.
Sanjay Rajowar (A-1)(i), he has the burden of looking after his brother and mother. He and
his mother are the earning member of the family and also while discussing the mitigating
factors with regards to the other accused persons and found that:-
(i) All the accused are belonging to tea garden tribes and they are backward in both
socio-economic fronts.
(ii) Most of them are illiterate and some of them even do not know how to read and
Page No.# 75/97write.
(iii) They are of young in age and almost all of them are below 40 years
(iv) They have no criminal antecedent/records;
(v) No previous conviction is proved against them by the prosecution side.
75. The learned Trial Court having drawn up a balance sheet of all the aggravating as
well as mitigating circumstances and placing the same in juxtaposition, and even giving
maximum weightage to the mitigating factors found that the balance sheet is heavily against
accused Sanjoy Rajowar. From the facts and circumstances on the record the following
circumstances, which are exceptionally grave, can be culled out:
(i) He caused the fatal injury, i.e. injury No. (a) toDr. Deben Dutta, besides causing
injury No.(d). He took lead part in assaulting the Doctor and he was most aggressive.
(ii) He did not show any regret, sorrow or repentance at any point of time during the
commission of such a brutal crime nor thereafter. His mindset cannot be said to be
amenable to any reformation or rehabilitation.
(iii) The murders were committed while the victim was on duty, without any
provocation from his side. It was a cold blooded murder as submitted by the Ld.
Special P.P.
(iv) The victim was a person rendered helpless by old age (73 years).
(v) It was executed in a planned manner. It was absolutely devilish and dastardly,
involving inhumane treatment and torture to the victim for more than one and half
hour in broad day light, in presence of patient and attendants and Hospital staffs and
also in front of mobile cameras of the reporters present there.
(vi) It has resulted in intense and extreme indignation of the community and it pricks
or shocks not only the judicial conscience, but also the collective conscience of the
society. The society would approve it as the incident will have perilous effect upon it as
the incident act as a catalyst in redefining the Doctor patient relationship.
(vii) The victim was a Doctor and generally loved and respected by the community for
Page No.# 76/97the services rendered by him and the murder was committed for other than personal
reasons.
(viii) The offence is exceptional in nature and it reflects extreme depravity by not
allowing the seriously injured Doctor to take to the Hospital in the 108 Ambulance and
chasing it away from the Hospital;
(ix) The very existence of the rule of law and the fear of being brought to book failed
to operate as a deterrent to him, who has no scruples in killing others if it suits his
ends.
76. The learned Trial Court thus, found that the above nine exceptional cases would
operate as special and meaningful reasoning as contemplated under section 354(3) Cr.P.C to
award death penalty to the accused Sanjay Rajowar and bearing in mind the principles laid
down in Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (Supra), Macchi Singh vs. State of Punjab(Supra),
Ramnaresh Vs. State of Maharashtra (citation) accordingly sentenced the accused Sanjay
Rajowar to death sentence. He shall be hanged by neck till he is death. He was also
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 500/- under section 302 IPC.
77. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel appearing as an Amicus Curiae, submitted
that the accused Sh. Sanjay Raj Pawar has been rightly awarded the death sentence on his
conviction under section 302 IPC. The learned Senior counsel submitted that he is in full
agreement with the views taken by the learned Trial Court, wherein which are exceptionally
grave, can be culled out:
78. The learned Senior counsel submitted that as per the judgments of the Supreme Court
cited the test to be applied are the crime test, criminal test and the rarest of rare case test.
He submitted that crime test is nothing but the aggravating factors, criminal case is nothing
but the mitigating factors, then after balancing these two the test of rarest of rare is to be
applied.The learned counsel submits that the instant case fall in the category of rarest of rare
from the conduct of the accused and the evidence of PW-36 and PW-37 who are the eye
witnesses. He submitted that the other accused persons may be involved in giving fists and
Page No.# 77/97
blow however nobody went to the extent of breaking the window plane and piercing the
thigh of the Doctor which was gruesome enough to cause the death of the Doctor which the
accused knew. The accused had also ensured that nobody comes there.The impact which the
crime has on the society is also an aspect which needs to be taken note of. It was a clear
case where a Doctor who was attending his duty taking care of a patient when he was killed
in a brutal manner. He also submitted that had the accused not prevented the Doctor from
been taken for timely treatment in the Ambulance it would not have been a case under 302
IPC. Death was caused due to the aggravating circumstances of the accused purposely and
knowingly preventing the Doctor from getting timely treatment. It is case where all the
guidelines of the Apex Court in Machhi Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra), Bachan Singh Vs.
State of Punjab (Supra) have been duly applied.
79. Mrs. S. Jahan, learned Addl, PP also submitted that the Trial Court after hearing all the
parties and upon examination of the principles enunciated in various decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court and after examining the aggravating and mitigating factors, could not take a
lenient view and taking the case in the “rarest of the rare” category, awarded death sentence
to the Appellant, Shri. Sanjay Rajowar.
The learned Addl. P.P submitted that the aggravating circunstances found in the instant case
are:-
1. Sanjoy Rajowar entered Doctor’s chamber by breaking open the door as stated by PW No.
40, Sri. Raju Barik, an eye witness to the occurrence.
2. Sanjoy Rajowar was shouting that the Doctor be thrashed and to attack the Doctor, he
broke the window panes for which he himself got injured but still he was bent upon in
assaulting the Doctor, as deposed by PW No. 32, Manoj Das, an eye witness to the
occurrence.
3. Sanjoy Rajowar not only assaulted the Doctor but also attacked Sri. Khanindra Nath, the
Sub-Inspector of Teok Police Station as stated by the said police officer in his deposition as
PW No. 9.
4. Sanjoy Rajowar was stated to be more aggressive that even after he was chased out, he
came back and assaulted the Doctor and broke the window panes as revealed by PW No. 10.
5. Sanjoy Rajowar prevented the police from taking the Doctor out of his room as stated by
PW No. 17 – Sri. Mridul Borah, the homeguard at Teok Police Station.
Page No.# 78/97
6. Sanjoy Rajowar broke glass panes and pierced on the thigh of the Doctor and gave fist
blows as well and while doing so, by showing and pressing on the injury, told the Doctor
whether he got the lesson as stated by PW No. 36, Shri. Gopal Bora, another eye witness to
the occurrence. Such was the conduct of Sanjay Rajowar.
7. Sanjoy Rajowar was giving fist blows to the Doctor and thereafter he removed his shirt,
tied on his hand and broke glass panes and pierced it on the thigh of the Doctor showing his
aggression.
8. Sanjoy Rajowar attacked police, as stated by PW No. 44 – Sri. Duleswar Majhi, an eye
witness.
9. The chance finger print found on the broken glass found to be similar with the specimen
finger print of Sanjoy Rajowar as revealed by PW No. 51, Sri. Diganta Das, finger print
expert.
10. The Doctor was 73 years of age.
11. The Doctor was pulled to his room, was made to sit on his chair by ManojMajhi and
thereafter other accused persons along with Sanjay Rajowar forcibly entered the Doctor’s
chamber and assaulted. The Doctor did not show any aggression whatsoever not even by
words spoken. The Doctor at that juncture simply requested to call the garden manager.
12. The Doctor tried to come out of the hospital but he was not allowed by the mob.
13. The Doctor said before witnesses that his femur artery is cut and unless he is taken to
hospital, he would die as stated by PW No. 1. Yet the accused persons did not allow the
Doctor to be taken to the hospital. The Doctor remained there for more than an hour and as
such, he died of the injury and the injury was caused by Sanjay Rajowar.
14. The Doctor who conducted the autopsy returned the finding that injury (a) which was the
thigh injury may be solely responsible for causing death of a person in natural course of
time.
15. Sanjoy Rajowar and others threatened the witnesses not to depose, interfering with the
administration of justice.
16. The Doctor immediately attended the patient after advising the nurse to administer the
injection and was treating the patient by nebulizing him inside the patient’s room was
however pulled from the said room to the Doctor’s chamber without allowing him to treat was
a pure dastardly act on the part of the accused person. The accused persons cannot know
that the patient had died as they claimed. Had that been the case, the Doctor would have
toldthem that he died. He rather was treating the patient.
17. It is as such apparent that since the accused persons wanted the Doctor to be removed
from the hospital, they on the slightest opportunity created the ruckus even before the death
of the patient.
The learned APP then submitted that the mitigating circumstances are:-
Page No.# 79/97
(i) The Appellant was 21 years of age.
(ii) He has a mother and a brother.
(iii) He has the burden to look after his mother and brother.
The learned APP has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in :-
1. State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 426, (pr 1, 8) – [evidence
of the Doctor is the substantive evidence whereas the post mortem report is only
corroborative.]
2. Chhannu Lal Verma Vs. State of Chattisgarh, reported in (2019) 12 SCC 438, (pr –
8 to 18).
3. State of Uttarakhand Vs. Kuldeep, reported in(2024) 0 Supreme (UK) 226, (pr –
47) [on residual doubt]
80. Mr. M.K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the deceased, a
senior and respected Doctor, was killed in the most cruel and barbaric manner while he was
selflessly performing his professional duties. Such an act of heinous violence in broad
daylight, in a place meant for healing and care, is an affront to the very fabric of a civilized
society.
He submitted the following points:
1. Murder committed in public view and in the of presence authorities The murder
took place in the presence of the general public and even government officials, including
police personnel, who are entrusted with the duty of maintaining law and order. Despite the
presence of law enforcement officials, the accused executed this gruesome crime without any
fear of consequences, indicating the calculated and audacious nature of the act.
2. Helplessness of the aged victim The deceased was a 73-year-old senior Doctor who
was utterly defenseless against such a barbaric attack. He was unable to protect himself and
succumbed to death due to severe bodily injuries, particularly a piercing wound on his thigh,
which led to excessive blood loss and fatal consequences. The deceased never incited anyone
or displayed any acts of aggressiveness. Till the end of his life, the deceased was performing
his duties.
3. Fatal injury by sharp weapon As per medical evidence, Injury No. (a), inflicted with a
Page No.# 80/97sharp, cutting, and pointed weapon, was independently sufficient to cause death in the
natural course. The attack by the accused, Sanjay Rajowar, was deliberate and inflicted with
the intent to kill, leaving no scope for doubt regarding his culpability.
4. Extended torture without provocation The convict subjected the victim to extreme
brutality for approximately one and a half hours without any provocation. The sustained
torture and inhumane treatment before ultimately killing the Doctor highlight the savage
intent and the utter lack of humanity in the accused.
5. A rarest of rare case of mob lynching This case is not only an instance of mob
lynching but falls within the rarest of rare cases where the accused, Sanjay Rajowar,
meticulously planned, motivated, and executed a cold-blooded, targeted, and inhuman
murder. Such actions demand the strictest form of legal deterrence to uphold the sanctity of
life and the rule of law.
6. Irreparable loss to the family and society The family of the deceased Doctor has
suffered an irreparable loss, never expecting such a sudden and violent end to his life,
especially at an age when he was offering invaluable service to society. The loss has left the
family in a state of permanent grief and trauma, with their lives changed forever.
7. Lack of remorse and threats to witnesses The convict, Sanjoy Rajowar, has exhibited
no remorse or mercy for his actions. His conduct before and after the crime, including threats
to witnesses and false imputations against the Investigating Officer under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
demonstrates his depraved mind and lack of potential for reform. The victim was a respected
public figure, loved and admired by the community, and his murder has deeply
shaken society’s conscience.
8. Judicial precedents on sentencing in heinous crimes There are several judgments
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which establish that the age of the accused cannot be the sole
determining factor in awarding extreme penalties. In cases of premeditated, cold- blooded,
and heinous crimes, the severity of the offense must weigh heavily over considerations of the
convict’s personal circumstances.
9. Burden of family not a sufficient mitigating factor During the sentencing hearing
Page No.# 81/97under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C., During 235(2) Cr.P.C hearing Sanjay Rajowar deposed that he
has the burden of looking after his brother and mother and he and his brother is the earning
member of the family whereas his mother is also a permanent worker of Teok Tea Garden.
However, such claims cannot be a mitigating factor when the crime committed is of such a
brutal nature, demonstrating extreme depravity and lack of regard for human life.
10. Conspiracy theory It is not the case of Sanjoy Rajowar that he is the relative or in any
manner related to deceased Samra Majhi. He was also not present when SamraMajhi was
brought to the hospital or that he caused the injury upon the deceased Doctor on the spur of
the moment being driven by any emotional distress. Rather it is clearly elucidated by the
prosecution witness no. 1 supported by 313 statement of accused ManojMajhi that the
accused wanted to remove the deceased Doctor from the hospital much prior to the date of
incident establishing the premeditated cold blooded nature of murder committed by accused
Sanjay Rajowar and others.
11. International ramification of the incident The incident has garnered international
attention, with news agencies like BBC publishing reports on the gruesome murder. This
crime has not only left an indelible scar on the minds of the medical fraternity but has also
caused global outrage. The impact of such an event extends beyond national borders,
requiring a strong judicial response to uphold justice and restore public confidence.
12. Aggressor The accused Sanjoy Rajowar was the most aggressive amongst all
theaccused person. Witness clearly stating that he prevented the police officials to take the
deceased Doctor to be taken to medical treatment. He could read and write as can be
elucidated from the fact that he signed in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement. After causing
such fatal injury upon the deceased, knowing fully well that the Doctor would succumb to his
injuries, he prevented the officials to take the Doctor for treatment ensuring the Doctors
death.
13. Presence of eye witness In the present case there are eye witnesses of sterling quality
clearly narrating the entire factual aspect. Further the credibility of the eye witnesses also
could not be shaken by the defence side.
Page No.# 82/97
14. Faith in the justice system must be upheld The sentencing in this case must serve
as a clear message that the law of the land protects all individuals and that no person has the
right to take another’s life. Justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done,
ensuring that society continues to have faith in the judiciary’s ability to provide security and
uphold constitutional principles.
81. Shri Das, the learned counsel thus submitted that given the gravity of the offense, the
heinous nature of the act, the absence of mitigating circumstances, and the necessity to
uphold justice, the strictest punishment as per law be awarded to the convict, Sanjay
Rajowar, to serve as a deterrent against such barbaric acts in the future.
82. Shri Das, the learned counsel has also relied on the following authorities:
1. Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (1982) 3 SCC 24
2. Macchi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (1983) 3 SCC 470
3. Ramnaresh & Ors. Vs State of Chhattishgarh, reported in (2012) 4SCC 257
Relevant Paragraphs 76, 77, 78 , 79, 80 and 81.
4. (2014) 4 SCC 317 Relevant Paragraphs 100,101,102 and 103.
5. Purushottam Dasarath Borate Vs State of Maharashtra, reported in (2015) 6 SCC
652 Relevant Paragraphs 26,27,30,31,32,37,42.
6. Dhananjoy Chaterjee Vs State of West Bengal, reported in 1994 SCC (2) 220
Relevant Paragraphs 14 and 15.
7. Mukesh Vs State (NCT) of Delhi, reported in (2017) 3 SCC 717 Relevant Paragraphs
498,506,509,510,514 – 517.
83. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, we
have perused the evidence on record. We find that the accused Sh. Sanjoy Rajowar was seen
by PW-40 and PW-36 breaking the glass panes and piercing on the thigh of the Doctor by the
glass panes and gave fist blows to the Doctor and he had further press on the injury on the
thigh of the Doctor. The statement of PW-10 also revealed that after the accused Sh. Sanjay
Rajowar was chased out, he came back and assaulted the Doctor, wherein he had broken the
window panes. PW-17 Sh. Mridul Bora deposed that the accused had prevented the police
from taking the Doctor out of the room. This Court also finds that on perusal of the post
mortem report the Stab injury of size 4 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep was present over the
Page No.# 83/97
medial aspect of right thigh was having clean cut margins and clotted blood were found
adherent at the wound margins which were resistant to washing with water. On dissection, it
was found that the weapon passes through (track of the injury) through the skin, sub-
coetaneous tissue, vastus medialis, adductor longus and femoral artery partially cut and
separated. There were also Contusion not more than 5cmx4cm on 5 different places on his
face, Contusion of size 6 cm x 5 cm was present on front of the chest, upper part, left side.
Underneath 3rd & 4th ribs were found fractured with surrounding soft tissue contusion. Other
organs were found healthy & pale.
It was found that the Doctor had died due to shock and haemorrhage following the injuries
sustained as described which were ante mortem and homicidal in nature. Injury No. 1 was
caused by sharp cutting weapon and the other injuries were caused by blunt weapon.
84. At this point we find it appropriate to refer to a few cases decided by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in reference to the imposition of death sentence.We find that the Apex Court
in Chhannu Lal Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2019) 12 SCC 438, the
Apex Court had commutted the death sentence to life imprisonment when the accused had
caused fatal injuries to three person with a knife by entering into their house . The Apex
Court had observed as under :
“26. Till the time death penalty exists in the statute books, the burden to be satisfied
by the Judge in awarding this punishment must be high. The irrevocable nature of the
sentence and the fact that the death row convicts are, for that period, hanging
between life and death are to be duly considered. Every death penalty case before the
Court deals with a human life that enjoys certain constitutional protections and if life is
to be taken away, then the process must adhere to the strictest and highest
constitutional standards. Our conscience as Judges, which is guided by constitutional
principles, cannot allow anything less than that ”
85. In the case of Manoj & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2023) 2
SCC 353 the Apex Court observed and held as follows:-
“226. In Shankar Kisanrao Khade [Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra,
(2013) 5 SCC 546, paras 148-149 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 402] this Court developed yet
Page No.# 84/97another framework of the “crime test”, criminal test” and “rarest of rare test” (which
was held to be distinct from the “balance test” that was discouraged in Santosh
Bariyar [Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC
498, para 112 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1150] and subsequently,
in Sangeet [Sangeet v. State of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 452 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 611]
as well) : (Shankar Kisanrao Khade case [Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of
Maharashtra, (2013) 5 SCC 546, paras 148-149 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 402] , SCC p. 576,
para 52)
“52. … In my considered view, the tests that we have to apply, while awarding death
sentence are “crime test”, “criminal test” and the “R-R test” and not the “balancing
test”. To award death sentence, the “crime test” has to be fully satisfied, that is, 100%
and “criminal test” 0%, that is, no mitigating circumstance favouring the accused. If
there is any circumstance favouring the accused, like lack of intention to commit the
crime, possibility of reformation, young age of the accused, not a menace to the
society, no previous track record, etc. the “criminal test” may favour the accused to
avoid the capital punishment. Even if both the tests are satisfied, that is, the
aggravating circumstances to the fullest extent and no mitigating circumstances
favouring the accused, still we have to apply finally the rarest of the rare case test (R-
R test). R-R test depends upon the perception of the society that is “society-centric”
and not “Judge-centric”, that is, whether the society will approve the awarding of
death sentence to certain types of crimes or not. While applying that test, the Court
has to look into variety of factors like society’s abhorrence, extreme indignation and
antipathy to certain types of crimes like sexual assault and murder of intellectually
challenged minor girls, suffering from physical disability, old and infirm women with
those disabilities, etc. Examples are only illustrative and not exhaustive. The Courts
award death sentence since situation demands so, due to constitutional compulsion,
reflected by the will of the people and not the will of the Judges.”
227. Recently, while considering a review petition, this Court in Rajendra Pralhadrao
Page No.# 85/97
Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra [Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra,
(2019) 12 SCC 460 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 420] held that Bachan Singh [Bachan
Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 580] had intended the
test to be “probability” and not improbability, possibility or impossibility of reformation
and rehabilitation as a mandate of Section 354(4)CrPC. [Rajendra Pralhadrao
Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 12 SCC 460, para 45 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 420]
The Court analysed numerous earlier precedents, noting that evidence by the State on
this has been sparse and limited, but was essential for the Courts to measure the
probability of reform, rehabilitation and reintegration. The Court located this
requirement in the right of the accused, who regardless of being ruthless, was entitled
to a life of dignity, notwithstanding his crime. [Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of
Maharashtra, (2019) 12 SCC 460, para 47 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 420] While this process
is not easy, it was noted that neither is the process of rehabilitation since it involves
reintegration into society. When this is found to be not possible in certain cases, a
longer duration of imprisonment was instead permissible.
260. The crime that the appellants have been held guilty of, is heinous; its execution
was vicious and cruel, by any stretch of imagination. The deception practised by the
appellants, in entering the flat, and, when encountering resistance, attacking the three
women, was calculated and ruthless. The repeated stabbings of two of the deceased,
almost in a frenzy, on the one hand, and the defenceless state of the victims, on the
other, highlights that the accused were willing to go ahead with their plans (of
robbing) after eliminating the women of three generations. No doubt, two of the
victims appear to have put up resistance, if one looks at the stab wounds inflicted all
over their bodies, including on their arms and faces. Yet, they were unarmed and
weak.
262. The reports received from the Superintendent of Jail reflect that each of the three
accused, have a record of overall good conduct in prison and display inclination to
reform. It is evident that they have already, while in prison, taken steps towards
Page No.# 86/97
bettering their lives and of those around them, which coupled with their young age
[Gurvail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 2 SCC 713, paras 13, 19 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri)
864; Amit v. State of U.P., (2012) 4 SCC 107, para 22 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 590; Shyam
Singh v. State of M.P., (2017) 11 SCC 265, para 8 : (2017) 4 SCC (Cri) 302
and Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 4 SCC 257, para 88 : (2012) 2 SCC
(Cri) 382] unequivocally demonstrates that there is in fact, a probability of reform. On
consideration of all the circumstances overall, we find that the option of life
imprisonment is certainly not foreclosed.
263. While there is no doubt that this case captured the attention and indignation of
the society in Indore, and perhaps the State of Madhya Pradesh, as a cruel crime that
raised alarm regarding safety within the community — it must be remembered that
public opinion has categorically been held to be neither an objective circumstance
relating to crime, nor the criminal, and the Courts must exercise judicial restraint and
play a balancing role. [Chhannu Lal Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 12 SCC
438, para 25 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 402; Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State
of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498, paras 80-89 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1150; M.A.
Antony v. State of Kerala, (2020) 17 SCC 751 : (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 341; Bachan
Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684, para 126 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 580]
264. In view of the totality of facts and circumstances, and for the abovestated
reasons, this Court finds that imposition of death sentence would be unwarranted in
the present case. It would be appropriate and in the overall interests of justice to
commute the death sentence of all three accused, to life imprisonment for a minimum
term of 25 years. The appeals are partly allowed in the above terms .
86. We have also noted that in recent judgment, the Supreme Court in Navas alias
Mulanavas vs. State of Kerala, 2024 SCC Online SC 315 has considered many cases
where the Court has commuted death sentence to life imprisonment. The operative part of
the order read as under:
Page No.# 87/97
“29. In Haru Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, (2009) 15 SCC 551 which involved
the murder of two individuals and the attempt to murder the third by the accused who
was out on bail in another case, after conviction, this Court while commuting the
death penalty after taking into account the aggravating and mitigating circumstances
imposed a sentence of 35 (thirty five) years of actual jail sentence without remission.
It was noted that commission of the offence was not premeditated since he did not
come armed and that the accused was the only bread earner for his family which
included two minor children.
30. In Mulla & Another v. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC 508 the accused/appellant,
along with other co-accused, was found guilty of murdering five persons, including one
woman. This Court confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence. This Court
stressed on the fact that socioeconomic factors also constitute a mitigating factor and
must be taken into consideration as in the case the appellants belonged to extremely
poor background which prompted them to commit the act. The sentence was reduced
from death to life imprisonment for full life, subject to any remission by the
Government for good reasons.
31. In Ramraj v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2010) 1 SCC 573 which involved the
murder of his wife, this Court imposed a sentence of 20 (twenty) years including
remissions.
32. In Ramnaresh and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 4 SCC 257 the
convicts were sentenced to death by the lower Court, with the High Court confirming
the sentence, on finding them guilty of raping and murdering an innocent woman
while she was alone in her house. This Court confirmed the conviction but found the
case did not fall under the ‘rarest of rare’ category for awarding death sentence.
Ultimately, after setting out the well-established principles and on consideration of the
aggravating and mitigating circumstances, this Court, while commuting the sentence
from death imposed a sentence of life imprisonment of 21 (twenty one) years.
Page No.# 88/97
33. Neel Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2012) 5 SCC 766 was a case where the
accused committed murder of his own four-year old daughter. This Court, after
considering the nature of offence, age, relationship and gravity of injuries caused,
awarded the accused 30 (thirty) years in jail without remissions.
34. In Sandeep v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 6 SCC 107 which involved the
murder of paramour and the unborn child (foetus), this Court, while considering the
facts and circumstances awarded a period of 30 (thirty) years in jail without remission.
35. In Shankar Kisanrao Khade vs State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 SCC 546, the
accused was convicted for raping and murdering a minor girl aged eleven years and
was sentenced to death for conviction under S. 302 of IPC, life imprisonment under S.
376, seven years RI under S. 366-A and five years RI under S. 363 r/w S. 34. This
Court confirmed the conviction but modified the death sentence to life imprisonment
for natural life and all the sentences to run consecutively.
36. Sahib Hussain v. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 9 SCC 778, concerned killing of
five persons including three children. This Court, taking note of the fact that the guilt
was established by way of circumstantial evidence and the fact that the High Court
had already imposed a sentence of 20 (twenty) years without remission, did not
interfere with the judgment of the High Court.
37. In Gurvail Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, (2013) 2 SCC 713 which involved
the murder of four persons, this Court weighed the mitigating factors i.e. age of the
accused and the probability of reformation and rehabilitation, and aggravating factors
i.e. the number of deceased, the nature of injuries and the totality of facts and
circumstances directed that the imprisonment would be for a period of 30 (thirty)
years without remission.
38. In Alber Oraon v. State of Jharkhand, (2014) 12 SCC 306 which involved the
murder by the accused of his livein partner and the two children of the partner, this
Court, even though it found the murder to be brutal, grotesque, diabolical and
Page No.# 89/97
revolting, applied the proportionality principle and imposed a sentence of 30 (thirty)
years over and above the period already undergone. It was ordered that there would
be no remission for a period of 30 (thirty) years.
39. In Rajkumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2014) 5 SCC 353, which involved
the rape and murder of helpless and defenceless minor girl, this Court commuting the
death penalty imposed a sentence of 35 (thirty five) years in jail without remission.
40. In Selvam v. State, (2014) 12 SCC 274, the accused was found guilty of
rape and murder of nine year old girl. This Court imposed a sentence of imprisonment
for a period of 30 (thirty) years without any remission, considering the diabolic manner
in which the offence has been committed against the child.
41. In Birju v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2014) 3 SCC 421, the accused was
involved in the murder of a one-yearold child. This Court noted that various criminal
cases were pending against the accused but stated that it cannot be used as an
aggravating factor as the accused wasn’t convicted in those cases. While commuting
the death penalty, this Court imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 20 (twenty) years over and above the period undergone without remission,
since he would be a menace to the society if given any lenient sentence.
42. In Tattu Lodhi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 9 SCC 675 this Court was
dealing with an appeal preferred by the accused who was sentenced to death after he
was found guilty of committing murder of a minor girl and for kidnapping and attempt
to rape after destruction of evidence. This Court reduced the sentence from death to
life imprisonment for a minimum 25 (twenty five) years as it noted that there exists a
possibility of the accused committing similar offence if freed after fourteen years. This
Court also opined that the special category sentence developed in Swamy
Shradhanand (supra) serves a laudable purpose which takes care of genuine concerns
of the society and helps the accused get rid of death penalty.
43. Vijay Kumar v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (2019) 12 SCC 791 was a case
Page No.# 90/97
where the accused was found guilty of murder of three minor children of the sister-in-
law of the accused. This Court, taking note of the fact that the accused was not a
previous convict or a professional killer and the motive for which the offence was
committed, namely, the grievance that the sister-in-law’s family was not doing enough
to solve the matrimonial problem of the accused, imposed a sentence of life
imprisonment till natural death of the accused without remission.
44. In Parsuram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2019) 8 SCC 382, the accused
had raped and murdered his own student. The Trial Court sentenced the accused to
death which was affirmed by the High Court. This Court took into consideration the
mitigating factors i.e. that the accused was twenty two years old when he committed
the act and the fact that there exists a possibility of reformation and the aggravating
factors i.e. that the accused abused the trust of the family of the victim. After
complete consideration and reference to some precedents, this Court imposed a
sentence of thirty years without any remission.
45. In Nand Kishore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2019) 16 SCC 278, the
accused was sentenced to death by the Trial Court and the High Court for committing
rape and murder of minor girl aged about eight years old. This Court noted the
mitigating factors i.e. age of the accused at the time of committing the act [50 years]
and possibility of reformation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment for a period of
25 (twenty five) years without remission.
46. Swapan Kumar Jha v. State of Jharkhand and Another, (2019) 13 SCC 579
was a case relating to abduction of deceased for ransom and thereafter murder by the
accused. This Court took into consideration the mitigating factors i.e. young age of the
accused, possibility of reformation and the convict not being a menace to society. On
the other side of the weighing scale, was the fact that the accused had betrayed the
trust of the deceased who was his first cousin and the fact that the
act was premeditated. This Court modified the death sentence to one of imprisonment
Page No.# 91/97
for a period of 25 (twenty five) years with remissions.
47. Raju Jagdish Paswan v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 16 SCC 380 was a
case where the accused was convicted for the rape and murder of minor girl aged
about nine years and sentenced to death by the trial Court which was affirmed by the
High Court. This Court noted the mitigating factors i.e. murder was not preplanned,
young age of the accused, no evidence to show that the accused is a continuing threat
to society and the aggravating factors i.e. the nature of the crime and the interest of
society, if petitioner is let out after fourteen years, imposed a sentence of life
imprisonment for 30 (thirty years) without remission.
48. In X v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 7 SCC 1 the accused was sentenced to
death by this Court on his conviction for committing rape and murder of two minor
girls who lived near his house. However, in review, the question placed before the
Court was whether postconviction mental illness be a mitigating factor. This Court
answered it in the affirmative but cautioned that in only extreme cases of mental
illness can this factor be taken into consideration. The Court reduced the sentence
from death to life imprisonment for the remainder of his life as he still poses as a
threat to society.
49. In Irappa Siddappa Murgannavar v. State of Karnataka, (2022) 2 SCC 801,
this Court affirmed conviction of the accused, inter alia, under S. 302 and 376 but
modified the sentence from death to life imprisonment for minimum 30 (thirty years).
This Court stated that mitigating factors such as young age of the accused, no criminal
antecedents, act not being pre-planned, socioeconomic background of the accused
and the fact that conduct of the accused inside jail was ‘satisfactory’ concluded that
sufficient mitigating circumstances exists to commute the death sentence.
50. In Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 817, this Court opined
that the facts of the case shocked the conscience of the Court. The accused was found
guilty of rape and murder of a twenty eight year old married woman who was
Page No.# 92/97
returning from her workplace. Despite noting that the case did not fall under the
‘rarest of rare’ category, the Court stated that while considering the possibility of
reformation of the accused, Courts held that showing undue leniency in such a brutal
case will adversely affect the public confidence in the efficacy of the legal system. It
concluded that a fixed term of 30 (thirty years) should be imposed.
51. In Manoj and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353, the
three accused were sentenced to death by the lower Court and confirmed by the High
Court on their conviction under Section 302 for committing murder, during the course
of robbery, of three women. This Court, while modifying the sentence from death to
life imprisonment for a minimum 25 (twenty five) years, took into consideration the
non-exhaustive list of mitigating and aggravating factors discussed in Bachan Singh
(supra) to establish a method of principled sentencing. This Court also imposed an
obligation on the State to provide material disclosing psychiatric and psychological
evaluation of the accused which would help the Courts understand the progress of the
accused towards reformation.
52. In Madan vs. State of U.P., 2023 SCC Online SC 1473, this Court was
dealing with a case wherein the accused was sentenced to death, along with other co-
accused, for murdering six persons of his village. This Court called for the jail conduct
report and psychological report of the accused which were satisfactory and depicted
nothing out of the ordinary. This Court also took into consideration the old age of the
accused and period undergone [18 yrs.] as mitigating factors. This Court concluded
that the case did not fall under the rarest of rare category and commuted the death
sentence to life imprisonment for minimum 20 (twenty years) including sentence
undergone.
53. In Sundar vs. State by Inspector of Police, 2023 SCC Online SC 310, this
Court, while sitting in review, commuted death sentence awarded to accused therein
to life imprisonment of minimum 20 (twenty years). The accused had committed rape
Page No.# 93/97
and murder of a 7-year-old girl. Factors that influenced this Court to reach such a
decision were the fact that no Court had looked at the mitigating factors. It called for
jail conduct and education report from the jail authorities and found that the conduct
was satisfactory and that accused had earned a diploma in food catering while he was
incarcerated. Apart from the above, the Court noted the young age of the accused, no
prior antecedents to reach a conclusion warranting modification in the sentence
awarded.
54. In Ravinder Singh vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2024) 2 SCC 323, the
accused was convicted under Sections 376, 377 & 506 of the IPC for raping his own 9-
year-old daughter by the Sessions Court and conviction was confirmed by the High
Court. The Sessions Court, while imposing life imprisonment, also stated that the
accused would not be given any clemency by the State before 20 years. This Court
clarified that, as discussed in V. Sriharan (supra), the power to impose a special
category sentence i.e. a sentence more than 14 years but short of death sentence can
only be imposed by the High Court or if in appeal, by this Court. Considering the
nature of the offence committed by the accused and the fact that if the accused is set
free early, he can be a threat to his own daughter, this Court imposed a minimum 20
(twenty years) life imprisonment without remissions.
55. A survey of the 27 cases discussed above indicates that while in five cases,
the maximum of imprisonment till the rest of the life is given; in nine cases, the period
of imprisonment without remission was 30 years; in six cases, the period was 20 years
(In Ramraj (supra), this Court had imposed a sentence of 20 years including
remission); in four cases, it was 25 years; in another set of two cases, it was 35 years
and in one case, it was 21 years.
56. What is clear is that Courts, while applying Swamy Shraddananda (supra),
have predominantly in cases arising out of a wide array of facts, keeping the relevant
circumstances applicable to the respective cases fixed the range between 20 years and
Page No.# 94/97
35 years and in few cases have imposed imprisonment for the rest of the life. So much
for statistics. Let us examine how the judgments guide us in terms of discerning any
principle.
57. A journey through the cases set out hereinabove shows that the
fundamental underpinning is the principle of proportionality. The aggravating and
mitigating circumstances which the Court considers while deciding commutation of
penalty from death to life imprisonment, have a large bearing in deciding the number
of years of compulsory imprisonment without remission, too. As a judicially trained
mind pores and ponders over the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and in
cases where they decide to commute the death penalty they would by then have a
reasonable idea as to what would be the appropriate period of sentence to be imposed
under the Swamy Shraddananda (supra) principle too. Matters are not cut and dried
and nicely weighed here to formulate a uniform principle. That is where the experience
of the judicially trained mind comes in as pointed out in V. Sriharan (supra).
Illustratively in the process of arriving at the number of years as the most appropriate
for the case at hand, which the convict will have to undergo before which the
remission powers could be invoked, some of the relevant factors that the Courts bear
in mind are: (a) the number of deceased who are victims of that crime and their age
and gender; (b) the nature of injuries including sexual assault if any; (c) the motive
for which the offence was committed; (d) whether the offence was committed when
the convict was on bail in another case; (e) the premeditated nature of the offence;
(f) the relationship between the offender and the victim; (g) the abuse of trust if any;
(h) the criminal antecedents; and whether the convict, if released, would be a menace
to the society. Some of the positive factors have been, (1) age of the convict; (2) the
probability of reformation of convict; (3) the convict not being a professional killer; (4)
the socioeconomic condition of the accused; (5) the composition of the family of the
accused and (6) conduct expressing remorse. These were some of the relevant factors
that were kept in mind in the cases noticed above while weighing the pros and cons of
Page No.# 95/97
the matter. The Court would be additionally justified in considering the conduct of the
convict in jail; and the period already undergone to arrive at the number of years
which the Court feels the convict should, serve as part of the sentence of life
imprisonment and before which he cannot apply for remission. These are not meant to
be exhaustive but illustrative and each case would depend on the facts and
circumstances therein.
87. Having refered to the above judgments of the Apex in ors. and Manoj & Ors. Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh, (supra ) and Navas alias Mulanavas vs. State of
Kerala(supra), we have also noted that the Apex Court in Bachan Singh2, (supra) had
directed along the highroad of legislative policy outlined in Section 354(3) viz. that for
persons convicted of murder, life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence an exception. A
real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life
through law’s instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases
when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.”
88. In the case of Manoj & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (supra ) it was also held
that-
“Next, the State, must in a time-bound manner, collect additional information pertaining to
the accused. An illustrative, but not exhaustive list is as follows:
(a) Age
(b) Early family background (siblings, protection of parents, any history of violence or
neglect)
(c) Present family background (surviving family members, whether married, has
children, etc.)
(d) Type and level of education
(e) Socio-economic background (including conditions of poverty or deprivation, if any)
(f) Criminal antecedents (details antecedents (details of offence and
whether convicted, sentence served, if any)
(g) Income and the kind of employment (whether none, or temporary or permanent,
etc.);
Page No.# 96/97
(h) Other factors such as history of unstable social behaviour, or mental or
psychological ailment(s), alienation of the individual (with reasons, if any), etc.
This information should mandatorily be available to the trial Court, at the sentencing stage.
The accused too, should be given the same opportunity to produce evidence in rebuttal,
towards establishing all mitigating circumstances.”
89. We have examined the instant case against the backdrop of the findings and decisions
of the Apex Court cited above, wherein we find that the act of the accused Sanjoy Rajowar
had pierced a glass pane in the thigh of the Doctor and had also assaulted the Doctor with
fist and blows along with other accused persons. We also find that in the instant case the
incident had occurrence when a mob had gathered around the hospital because of the death
of a patient, who had died in the hospital, wherein the Doctor was not immediately in the
hospital and a nurse on duty to administer a treatment before his arrival in the hospital,
which had infuriated the mob including the accused Sri Sanjoy Rajowar. It did not appear to
be done in a cold blooded manner but when the filled with anger along with the other
accused persons had assaulted the Doctor and under such charged emotional atmosphere
had stabbed and also pressed the glass pane upon the thigh of the Doctor, which had
ultimately lead to the death of Doctor Deben Dutta since the glass pane had cut the femoral
artery. It is seen from the evidence of prosecution witnesses that it was not only the accused
Sh. Sanjoy Rajowar who had prevented the Ambulance from reaching the Doctor for
immediate medical treatment , but was also the other accused persons and the mob.
We also find that in the instant case while the mitigating circumstances was considered
prior to the hearing of sentencing before the learned Trial Court, there is no psychological
evaluation report of prison report on the conduct of the accused and his work done in the
prison. There is no evidence leading to whether there is a chance for the accused to reform
himself nor did the learned trial Court call for any report on this aspect.
90. Thus from the backdrop of the decisions of the Apex Court refered to and the
circumstances and nature of the injuries inflicted upon the Doctor by the accused Sanjoy
Rajowar in the instant case, we find that the unfortunate incident which had taken place in
Page No.# 97/97
the midst of an emotional rage of the mob against the Doctor, ignited due to the death of a
patient, cannot be said to be pre-planned, cold blooded and grotesque or diabolical which can
be termed as the rarest of rare cases and accordingly we find that the imposition of death
sentence in the instant case is unwarranted.
91. The reference is answered accordingly.
92. It is however clarified that so far as the the conviction is concerned, the same has
been taken up for consideration and decided in the connected two appeals preferred by the
convicts, the judgment of which has been rendered separately.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant