Back
2009 Supreme(Gau) 94
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Aftab H. Saikia and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
Jiarat Khan
Vs.
State of Assam
Cr. Appeal No. 87 of 2006
Decided On: 10.02.2009
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: D. Das, A.K. Bhuyan and K. Das, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Z. Kamar, P.P.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the need for a complete chain of evidence to establish guilt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
Headnote:
Section 302 - Conviction under Section 302, IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 302, IPC - The court discussed the importance of proving the four important circumstances in cases of murder by administering poison, as laid down in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622. The court also referred to the conditions that must be fulfilled to prove a case based on circumstantial evidence, as provided in the case of Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1952 SCR 1091 : AIR 1952 SC 343. The court emphasized the need for the circumstances to be fully established, consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, of a conclusive nature and tendency, to exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and to form a complete chain of evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution case involved the killing of the appellant's wife, which was based on circumstantial evidence as there was no eye-witness to prove the incident. The medical evidence did not ascertain the cause of death, and the testimony of witnesses was contradictory.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn were not fully established to complete the chain of evidence. The various links in the chain of evidence relied upon by the prosecution were not satisfactorily proved, and the circumstances did not point to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused in the absence of eye-witnesses and the contradictory nature of witness testimony.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra and the case of Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh to assess the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the need for a complete chain of evidence to establish guilt.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the impugned conviction and sentence, granting the appellant the benefit of doubt and setting him at liberty forthwith if he is not wanted in connection with any other criminal case.
Aftab H. Saikia, J.
1. Heard Mr. D. Das learned Counsel assisted by Mr. A.K. Bhuyan and Mr. K. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. Z. Kamar, learned P.P. Assam.
2. The conviction of the Appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2(two) months so handed down by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta, in Sessions Case No. 37/04 by his judgment and order dated 7.4.2006 have been questioned in this appeal.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that one Abdul Mazidof Nangalkur (PW 5) under Barpeta Police Station lodged an ejahar with the Officer-in-Charge Barpeta Police Station on 23.3.1999 stating the fact that his daughter Musstt Majiran Nessa (herein after referred to as 'the deceased') got married with accused Jiarat Khan about one year ago but due to the atrocities on the daughter she came to her parents house after about 2 months of her marriage and took shelter at his house. On the previous day i.e. on 22.3.1999 at about 8 a.m. his daughter went to Uttar Barpeta by rickshaw to visit the near relatives. On the way the accused Jiarat Khan (husband of the deceased the Appellant) and Osman Ali restrained his daughter near Chaulkhowa bridge and forcibly took her to the house of Osman Ali and confined there. On information, the informant went to the house of Osman Ali to bring his daughter. Osman Ali was the nephew of the informant and elder brother in law (Bhini) of accused. On the assurance of Osman that his daughter would be sent back to his house, he returned to his house. On the date of the lodging of the FIR i.e. 23.3.1999 the informant sent his son Abdul Rouf at about 7 a.m. to the house of Osman Ali to know about his daughter and to bring her from the house of Osman Ali. But the accused persons i.e. Jirat Ali, (the Appellant) Osman Ali and Abdul Barek told Abdul Rouf that they would send back informant's daughter to her father's house but subsequently instead of sending his daughter to her father's house she was taken to house of Abdul Barek Master and killed her there. At the time of lodging the ejahar the dead body of his daughter was in the house of Rahim Khan of Tetelirtal.
4. Barpeta Police registered the case being Barpeta RS. Case No. 219/99 under Sections 120(M) /302 / 342 / 34, IPC. During investigation the police collected other evidence, seized some articles. Collected Post Mortem Report but the post mortem report shows that viscera was preserved for chemical examination and accordingly Barpeta Police took the initiative to send the viscera of the dead body of Majiran Nessa for chemical examination at F.S.L. Kahilipara, Guwahati. In due course, the I/O received the report of examination of viscera from Forensic Science Laboratory.
5. In the mean time out of ejahar named three accused, only Jiarat Khan was arrested and produced before the Court.
6. The police on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused Appellant under Section 302, IPC. During the trial the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses including PW 4 Dr. P. Uzir who held post-mortem of the body of the deceased when defence examined none.
7. Admittedly there was no eye-witness to prove the incident of killing of his wife by the Appellant.
8. The learned Judge having closely appreciated the material evidence on record including oral as well as documentary evidence and those exhibits and also upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, found the Appellant guilty of the offence of killing his wife the deceased and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as already indicated above. Hence this Criminal Appeal.
9. PW 4 the Doctor who conducted the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased found the following injuries as revealed by him in his evidence:
On examination I found bloodstained froth present in the mouth and stomach contains foul smelling dark yellow coloured p
