Back
1968 Supreme(Gau) 4
ASSAM AND NAGALAND HIGH COURT
M.C. Pathak , P.K. Goswam, J.
MEDU SEKH AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1968 (Against judgment of D. N. Deka, S.J., Gauhati,)
Decided on : 11-1-1968, November 10, 1971.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for voluntary confessions and the need for admissible evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Confession - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Section 302/34 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the murder of a young man, Faizuddin, and the subsequent conviction of accused Jamir Ali alias Bapu and Medu Sekh under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including confessional statements and the evidence of a trained dog.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the confessions of the accused were not voluntary and therefore inadmissible under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. Without the confessions, there was no evidence to connect the accused with the offense. The court also questioned the reliability of the dog's evidence and highlighted serious infirmities in the prosecution's case.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the admissibility of the confessions, the reliability of the dog's evidence, and the sufficiency of the prosecution's case to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of voluntariness of the confessions, the questionable reliability of the dog's evidence, and the insufficiency of the prosecution's case to establish guilt without the confessions.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence of the accused were set aside, and they were acquitted and discharged from their bail bonds. The appeal was allowed.
Goswami, C.J. :- This appeal is against conviction of accused Jamir Ali alias Bapu and Medu Sekh under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and sentence on each of them to imprisonment for life. Here is a case where a dog has responded to the command of man, but man has not to the command of law.
2. The Prosecution case opens with the first information report by Rajmil Sheikh (P.W. 5) the father of Faizuddin aged about 18 years, his murdered son, lodged at the Palasbari police station on 8th November, 1965 at 3.30 p.m. It is stated therein that his son had left the previous evening after meal and was found lying dead at Sarpara paddy field that morning. It is further stated therein that "some unknown miscreant has murdered my son .....". The Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 15), who, in the absence of the officer-in-charge, registered the case went to Sarpara field and held inquest over the dead body of Faizuddin (Ext. 10) the same afternoon and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination which was done next day at 11 a.m. It is revealed in the evidence of Dr. A. Mahmud (P.W. 2) that the following injuries were found :
(1) Lacerated wound on the right parietal area of skull 2" x 1/2" x bone
(2) Abrasion 1" x 2" on the right axilla
(3) Abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" on the right elbow
(4) Seven abrasions on the neck on both sides five on the right and two on the left measuring respectively 3" x 1/4", 2" x 1/2", 1/2" x 1/2", 1/2" x 1/4" and 2 1/2" & 1/2" & 1/2" x 1/2". According to the doctor, the deceased was aged about 18 years. He also found "face clotted, tongue protruded eyes closed, mouth open, marks of bleeding in the ear and nostrils, body covered with mud in front, the scalp congested, fractured base of skull at the middle fossa, vertebrae healthy, subdural clot on the right parietal area 4" x 4" brain congested". Death, according to the opinion of the doctor, "is due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries (sic) to the skull which was ante mortem."
P.W. 15 drew up a sketch map of the place (Ex. 11) with index and he seized some cut hair (Ext. 111) as per Ext. 12 dated 8th November, 1965 as well as a leather sheath of a small size dagger about 6" long and a pair of socks lying at the place of occurrence. He also seized other articles being wearing garments for the deceased on 9th November, 1965 after post-mortem. He found marks of struggle on the grass at a distance of about 20 feet to the south of the place where the dead body was lying and found a trial extending from that place to the place where the dead body was. There was standing sugarcane at about a distance of furlong from the place of struggle and there was a tank nearby and to the north of the tank there were standing rice crops.
The Sub-Inspector Gopalakrishna Roy (P.W. 16) took over the investigation from P.W. 15 and visited the place of occurrence. On 9th November, 1965, on suspicion, he arrested five persons, accused Jamir, accused Medu, Asar, Hanif and Nazer; the last three ultimately were not charge-sheeted. He seized on 10th November, 1965 at 8 p.m. an endi chadar produced by accused Medu from his wearing at the police station (Seizure list Ext. 8). He also seized from the wearing of accused Jamir a shirt with blood like stains on 10th November, 1965, at 8.15 p.m. at the police station (seizure list Ext. 9). He seized on 12th November at 10 a.m. a dagger (M. 1) under seizure list Ext. 6 on being produced by accused Jamir searching out from the nearby tank (Gambir Pukhuri). He also seized (seizure list Ext. 7) the same day at 10.30 a.m., that is to say half an hour after seizure list Ext. 6, a Bharat brand shaving blade one side broken, on being produced by accused Jamir searching out from 2" of water from Gambir Pukhuri. He sent the endi chadar and some other articles to the Director of Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Calcutta, but his report (Ext. 15) is not at all helpful to the prosecution.
2-A. After the arrest of the accused
