PANAJI
The Additional Sessions Court, Mapusa has framed charges of murder against a labourer Joydahan Bharali for the alleged killing of his fellow worker Tapan Tiwari in a rented room in Corlim on December 31, 2023.
According to the Mapusa police investigation, the accused assaulted the deceased with a broken part of a scissor following a caste-related argument and subsequently stabbed him in the chest. The victim succumbed to the injuries thereafter.
During the hearing, the Public Prosecutor contended that the offence was a premeditated murder while it relied on the statement of a key witness Bhupendra Boro, who confirmed a heated scuffle between the accused and the victim.
Boro stated that he had earlier intervened in a scuffle between the accused and the deceased, after which the deceased returned to his room. Bharali, however, later took a scissor and attacked the deceased in his chest and abdomen. The PP argued that there was sufficient evidence to frame charges under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code. On the other hand, the defence argued that the incident was not a planned murder but a case of sudden provocation.
The Court noted it showed the intention of the accused in assaulting him. “The accused while committing the assault was well aware that the scissor is a sharp weapon and thus can cause the death of a person if assaulted with it. Thus the intention and the knowledge that the assault will cause death of the deceased is evident from the statement of this witness,” Additional Sessions Judge Sharmila Patil observed.
The court also rejected the defence’s argument, stating that the statement of the witness, coupled with the post-mortem report, clearly indicated Bharali's intent. The court noted that after the initial scuffle, the accused had gone to take a weapon and thereafter assaulted the victim. The post-mortem report revealed multiple stab injuries with the fatal wound on the chest and injuries on the abdomen and wrist. Scratch marks on the deceased’s neck further suggested a violent attack.
Observing that at the stage of framing charges, the court is only required to establish a prima facie case, it ruled that the evidence presented sufficiently established intent and knowledge on the part of the accused regarding the serious offense. The matter will now proceed to trial.
