Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Pulen Phukan and Others – Appellants
Versus
The State of Assam – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 906 of 2016
Decided On : 28-03-2023
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 173 – Crime investigation – Job of prosecution is not to accept complainant’s version as Gospel Truth and proceed in that direction but investigation must be made in a fair and transparent manner and must ascertain truth – Evidence collected during investigation should then be analysed by Investigating Officer and accordingly a report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. should be submitted – Duty of Trial Court is to carefully scrutinise evidence, try to find out truth on the basis of evidence led – Wherever necessary Trial Court may itself make further inquiry on its own with regard to facts and circumstances which may create doubt in minds of Court during trial – If investigation is unfair and tainted then it is duty of Trial Court to get clarifications on all aspects which may surface or may be reflected by evidence so that it may arrive at a just and fair conclusion – If Trial Court fails to exercise this power and discretion vested in it then judgment of Trial Court may be said to be vitiated. (Para 13)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/149/147/148/447/323 – Murder, house trespass and hurt – Common object of unlawful assembly – Conviction and sentence – There is no evidence to the effect that any of accused exhorted others saying that they have to eliminate deceased and assault injured – There was no unlawful assembly – There is no recovery at instance of any accused under Section 27 of Evidence Act – There is material inconsistency in statement of eye-witnesses – Entire version of prosecution witnesses that police personnel accompanied accused and were standing outside house of deceased creates a serious doubt on very genesis of prosecution story – Even scribe of FIR has not been produced nor signatures have been proved – It is quite possible that it was a complete set-up by police – Prosecution has not established place of occurrence by any material exhibit – Evidence creates very serious doubt on entire prosecution story – Conviction and sentence are set aside by extending benefit of doubt to appellants. (Paras 15, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31)
Facts of the case:
Appellants have assailed the correctness of judgment and order dated 21.11.2015 passed by Gauhati High Court in Criminal Appeal No.113/2014 – Pulen Phukan and 10 others versus State of Assam whereby the appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment and order of Trial Court i.e. Sessions Judge at Dibrugarh passed in Sessions Case No.27 of 2000 whereby 11 accused were convicted under Sections 147/148/447/323/302/149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for six months under Sections 147/148/447/323 IPC. Further a fine of Rs.1,000/- was imposed on each of the 11 accused and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further one-month Rigorous Imprisonment.
Findings of Court:
Although death of Pradip Phukan was homicidal but we are not convinced that the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellants. The appellants would be entitled to benefit of doubt. Appeal is accordingly allowed. The conviction and sentence are set aside. The appellants are set at liberty forthwith. They are in judicial custody. They may be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. The Appellants have assailed the correctness of judgment and order dated 21.11.2015 passed by Gauhati High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 113/2014 - Pulen Phukan and 10 others versus State of Assam whereby the appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment and order of Trial Court i.e. Sessions Judge at Dibrugarh passed in Sessions Case No. 27 of 2000 whereby 11 accused were convicted under Sections 147/148/447/323/302/149 of Indian Penal Code, 18601 [IPC] and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for six months under Sections 147/148/447/323 IPC. Further a fine of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed on each of the 11 accused and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further one-month Rigorous Imprisonment.
2. It would be relevant to note here that although trial was conducted against 11 out of 13 accused and all of them were convicted and sentenced as above, all the 11 convicted accused had preferred an appeal before the High Court which had been dismissed. However, before this Court only four of such accused have preferred an appeal, namely, Pulen Phukan (accused no. 1), Jiten Phukan (accused no. 3), Mridul Saikia @ Midul Saikia (accused no. 5) and Mozen Phukan (accused no. 2). Two of the thirteen accused namely Dhajen Phukan and Muhiram Phukan remained absconded and there is no material on record regarding their arrest or trial.
3. The prosecution story begins with lodging of a First Information Report2 [FIR] on 13 June, 1989 at Police Station Chabua, District Dibrugarh, reported by Smt.Nareswari Phukan (PW-1). It is a very short and crisp FIR which states that around 12 noon on 13.06.1989, thirteen residents of the village came to her house, cordoned off her house without any reason and caused grievous injury on the head of her brother-in-law Robi Phukan (PW-2) by giving blows with sharp weapons and three of the accused persons, namely, Mozen Phukan, Dulen Phukan and Haren Saikia committed murder of Pradip Phukan by assaulting him with sharp cutting weapons, necessary action may be taken regarding the said incident. This was registered as Chabua Case No. 70/89 under Sections 147/148, 149, 447, 302, 326, 34 IPC. The police came to the spot, made the necessary enquiries and after completing the formalities sent the dead-body of the deceased for post-mortem. They also collected some material from the spot for which recovery memos were prepared and the material taken into custody. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 3rd May, 1991 against eight accused, namely, Mozen Phukan, Mridul Saikia, Kuleshwar Chetia, Pulen Phukan, Baren Saikia, Dulen Phukan, Kiran Saikia and Harnath Saikia. Five accused could not be arrested as such they were not sent for trial being absconders, namely, Jiten Phukan, Dhajen Phukan, Muhiram Phukarn, Haren Saikia and Jiban Chetia. It appears that at some stage three more accused were arrested and they were also sent for trial. The two accused who remained absconding are Dhajen Phukan and Muhiram Phukan. The charge-sheet was submitted finding prima facie case for trial under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 448, 324, 326 and 302 IPC. The charges were read out to the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution examined seven witnesses and also filed four documentary evidences to prove the charges. The seven witnesses are as follows:
(i) PW-1 - Informant and eye-witness: Smt. Nareswari Phukan (sister-in-law of the deceased).
(ii) PW-2 - Eye-witness and injured: Robi Phukan (brother of the deceased).
(iii) PW-3 - Eye-witness: Smt. Jogmaya Phukan (sister in law of the deceased).
(iv) PW-4 - Eye-witness: Smt. Anjana Phukan, (relative of the deceased).
(v) PW-5 - Bhuban Phukan, relative of the deceased.
(vi) PW-6 - Dr. Naleswar Sonowal who conducted the autopsy on the dead-body of the deceased.
(vii) PW-7 - Nilo Chiring, the Investigating Officer who submitted the charge-sheet (Ex.4).
5. The d
(1) Crime investigation – Job of prosecution is not to accept complainant’s version as Gospel Truth and proceed in that direction but investigation must be made in a fair and transparent manner and m....
Conviction for murder upheld based on unlawful assembly doctrine; presence in assembly sufficient for accountability under Section 149 IPC.
Presence in an unlawful assembly suffices for liability, affirming that minor discrepancies in testimonies do not negate the prosecution's case.
The appellate court emphasized that eyewitness accounts must be given due weight, and mere flaws in investigation do not automatically discount credible testimonies in murder trials.
The court affirmed the conviction of the accused for murder, finding sufficient evidence of an unlawful assembly and individual culpability amid claims of inconsistencies in prosecution testimony.
Criminal Law – Offence of Murder – Testimony of eye-witnesses – Admissibility of - Testimony of eye-witnesses, we find that one Appellant 2 was identified as a member of the unlawful assembly who had....
Point of law: In the absence of such finding as also any overt act on the part of the accused persons, mere fact that they were armed would not be sufficient to prove common object.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
