MARKASH JAJARA versus THE STATE OF ASSAM & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 834 · Decided: 03-11-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT, DIPANKAR DATTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 834 : 2023 INSC 1015
834
CASE DETAILS
MARKASH JAJARA
v.
THE STATE OF ASSAM & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No.3405 of 2023)
NOVEMBER 03, 2023
[SURYA KANT AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: The appellant was held guilty of having 
committed the murder of his son-in-law. Whether the oﬀ ence attributed 
to the appellant falls within the ambit of Exception I of Section 300 IPC 
which deﬁ nes “murder”.
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 and Exception I of s.300 IPC – The 
occurrence took place inside the house of the appellant – The informant 
had gone to the house of the appellant and found his brother, who had 
been staying with his in-laws, lying dead – Trial Court on consideration 
of the evidence held the appellant guilty of committing an oﬀ ence u/s. 
302 IPC and consequently, sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment 
– Appeal was dismissed by the High Court – Propriety:
Held: The appellant’s motive at best was to prevent the deceased from 
misbehaving with his daughter after consuming alcohol – The manner in 
which the occurrence appears to have taken place inside the house, does 
indicate that the appellant lost his self-control on account of persistent 
provocation and suddenly thrashed his son-in-law with the bamboo stick – 
It is a case where provocation seems to be brewing up since the deceased 
shifted to the appellant’s house – It acquired enormous gravity with each 
recurrence of humiliating stances of the appellant’s daughter – The fatal 
occurrence was seemingly the ﬁ nal culmination of loss of the power of 
self-control – The simmering discontent of a frustrated and hapless father 
unfortunately led him to strike the deceased with a bamboo stick – The series 
of provocative acts attributable to the deceased indeed laid the foundation of 
835
sustained provocation – In the facts and circumstances of the present case, 
it appears that the act of the appellant in causing injuries to the deceased 
falls within the expression of `culpable homicide’ which does not amount 
to `murder’ – In considered opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would 
be adequately met by converting the sentence of life imprisonment awarded 
to the appellant to rigorous imprisonment of ten years – The sentence as 
awarded by the courts below stands modiﬁ ed accordingly. [Paras 17,18,19]
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No.3405 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.03.2019 of the Gauhati High 
Court in CRLAJ No.118 of 2016.
Appearances:
Gaurav Agrawal, Adv. for the Appellant.
Nalin Kohli, Sr. AAG, Aastik Dhingra, Anshul Malik, Shuvodeep Roy, 
Advs. for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
1.  Leave granted.
2.  The Gauhati High Court has dismissed the jail appeal, vide the 
impugned judgment dated 12.03.2019, preferred by the appellant against the 
judgment and order dated 03.10.2016, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, 
Jorhat whereby the appellant was held guilty of having committed the murder 
of his son-in-law, namely, late Markush Borja and sentenced to undergo life 
imprisonment with a ﬁ ne of Rs.10,000/- with the stipulated imprisonment 
of six months on default of payment of the ﬁ ne amount in Sessions Case 
No.188(J-T)/2015, arising out of Titabar P.S. Case No.65/2015.
3.  The above-stated FIR, under Section 302 IPC, was registered on 
the receipt of an ejahar submitted by P.W.8 (Well Borja), on the same day, 
MARKASH JAJARA v. THE STATE OF ASSAM & ANR.
836 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
to the eﬀ ect that his younger brother – Markush Borja had been assaulted 
and killed by the appellant with a bamboo stick. The occurrence took place 
inside the house of the appellant. The informant had gone to the house of 
the appellant and found his brother, who had been staying with his in-laws 
for the last 3/4 months, lying dead. 
4.  Following the registration of the FIR, the appellant was arrested and 
a chargesheet under Section 302 IPC was ﬁ led against him. The prosecution 
examined nine witnesses including the wife of the appellant – Mononit 
Jajara (P.W.5) and his daughter – Sarani Boria (P.W.6). The appellant’s wife 
supported the prosecution’s case to the extent that her son-in-law was killed 
by the appellant. However, she did not witness the occurrence as she could 
not enter the house out of fear. The statement of the appellant’s daughter, 
who is the wife of the decease
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.