Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 879

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.
Dibaker Nunia & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Assam – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 962 of 2011
Decided On : 30-08-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR, Mr. Parul Sharma, Adv., Mr. Shantanu Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Debojit Borkakati, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt but a fair doubt based upon reasons and common sense – It must grow out of evidence in the case – When a reasonable doubt arises in a matter, benefit of doubt must be given to accused.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Murder – Common intention – Life sentence – In such a criminal case, prosecution is expected to prove its case and to substantiate charge beyond reasonable doubt – A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt but a fair doubt based upon reasons and common sense – It must grow out of evidence in the case – When a reasonable doubt arises in a matter, benefit of doubt must be given to accused – In present case, doubts reasonably arising in the matter had been brushed aside by High Court on logic that itself remains unacceptable – It is true that deceased had been brutally assaulted and had received multiple injuries on vital parts but, on evidence as adduced by prosecution, it is difficult to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that appellants alone were authors of such injuries – Ordinarily, in an appeal by special leave against concurrent findings of fact, Supreme Court would not enter into re-appreciation of evidence – However, if assessment of Trial Court and High Court is vitiated by any error of law or procedure or misreading of evidence or any disregard to norms of judicial process leading to serious prejudice or injustice, Supreme Court may consider interference in an appropriate case so as to prevent miscarriage of justice – Impugned Judgments set aside and appellant acquitted. (Paras 13, 19, 20, 21 and 22)
Facts of the case:
Appellant assails judgment and order dated 17.09.2009, as passed by the Gauhati High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2006, whereby the High Court has dismissed appeal filed by present appellants and has affirmed judgment and order dated 16.02.2006, as passed by the Sessions Court, Cachar, Silchar, Assam in Sessions Case No. 37 of 2003 convicting the appellants of offence under Sections 302/34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and awarding the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulations.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment and order dated 17.09.2009, as passed by Gauhati High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2006 as also the judgment and order dated 16.02.2006, as passed by Sessions Judge, Cachar at Silchar in Sessions Case No. 37 of 2003 are set aside; and the appellants are acquitted as such. If appellants are in custody, they be released immediately.
Result – Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.09.2009, as passed by the Gauhati High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2006, whereby the High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellants and has affirmed the judgment and order dated 16.02.2006, as passed by the Session Court, Cachar, Silchar, Assam in Sessions Case No. 37 of 2003 convicting the appellants of offence under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and awarding the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulations.

2. Briefly put, the relevant background aspects of the matter are as follows :

2.1. On 01.10.1999, at about 10 a.m., PW-1 Amrit Tanti lodged an F.I.R. at the Ghungoor Police Outpost, stating that on the previous day, at about 12:30 midnight, while he was returning home from Sonai after an election campaign, he found a man lying in front of Congress Party's election office near the shop of PW-5 Joynarayan. According to the informant, from the light of an electric lamp, he could identify the man lying on the ground to be his younger brother Amar Tanti. He went home and came to know from his parents that the two accused persons Dibakar and Babul (the appellants) had assaulted the deceased in the evening hours. Hence, PW-1 Amrit Tati 1odged the written FIR whereupon, GD Entry No. 604 dated 01.10.1999 of Ghungoor Police Outpost was recorded and the FIR was forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge of Silchar Police Station. Accordingly, Silchar P.S. Case No. 1362 of 1999 under Section 302/34 IPC was registered.

2.2. The case was investigated mainly by PW-10 Dipen Paul. Inquest was held on the dead body which was sent for postmortem examination. The statements of various persons acquainted with the incident were also recorded. At the conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellants.

2.3. In view of the nature of offence, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. In relation to the charge of offence under Section 302/34 IPC, the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In the course of trial, ten witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The appellants did not examine any witness in defence. However, the statements of appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At the conclusion of trial, the accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

3. The prosecution case mainly rested on the testimony of PW-2 Sukhram, father of the deceased and PW-3 Menoka Tati, mother of the deceased, both of whom were said to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence.

3.1. PW-2 Sukhram stated that on the date of occurrence, he was returning home at about 8 p.m. along with his wife from Silchar. At Shilcoorie market, he heard cries of his son Amar and rushed towards the place of occurrence. He saw profuse bleeding from the head of his son. He found accused Babul over-powering his son and the other accused Dibakar assaulting him with a dao. Seeing blood from the injuries of his son, this witness fell unconscious and he regained consciousness in the night. The witness stated that he could identify both the accused persons in the street light. He reported the incident to his son (PW-1) in the night of occurrence.

In cross-examination, this witness PW-2 stated that though some persons came to the place of occurrence, they left immediately. He stated that though Silchar Medical College Hospital was at a distance of about 5 k.m. from the place of occurrence, he could not remove his son there as he was unconscious.

3.2. PW-3 Menoka Tati is the wife of PW-2 and step-mother of the deceased. She stated that at the time of occurrence, she was coming home from Silchar town with her husband. While they arrived Shilcoorie market at about 7/8 p.m., they heard the deceased crying for help. Along with her husband, she went to the place of occurrence and saw the accused Babul ho