Back
2007 Supreme(Gau) 410
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Aftab H. Saikia and Brojendra Prasad Katakey, JJ.
Lakhinath Chutia alias Lakhinandan
Vs.
State of Assam
Criminal Appeal No. 105(J) of 2001
Decided On: 08.06.2007
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: B. Chakraborty, Amicus Curiae
For Respondents/Defendant: D. Das, Public Prosecutor
The importance of corroboration of evidence and the limitations of using statements made before the police as substantive evidence in criminal cases.
Headnote:
Extra-Judicial Confession - Murder - Section 302/201, IPC - The judgment discusses the circumstantial evidence, extra-judicial confession, and the credibility of hostile witnesses in a murder case. It highlights the importance of corroboration of evidence and the limitations of using statements made before the police as substantive evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Reena Goala based on circumstantial evidence and an extra-judicial confession. Hostile witnesses were crucial to the prosecution's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's involvement in the murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment of conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Issues: The key issue was the credibility of the hostile witnesses and the reliance on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession in the absence of direct evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for corroboration of evidence and the limitations of using statements made before the police as substantive evidence. It also highlighted the cautious approach required when dealing with cases relying on hostile witnesses.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the appellant was acquitted, and the judgment of conviction was set aside.
B.P. Katakey, J.
1. The criminal proceeding was set in motion on lodging the First Information Report No. 202/99 (Ext. 2) by Rajen Gowala (who has not been examined by the prosecution) in Rajgarh Police Out Post in the district of Dibrugarh under Tingkhong Police Station wherein it has been alleged that on 19-2-1999 the accused appellant Lakhinath Chutia killed the complainant's sister Reena Goala and kept her dead body concealed somewhere. On the basis of the said FIR, Tingkhong Police Station case No. 12 /99 under Section 302 /201, IPC was registered. The investigating agency consequently conducted the investigation and having found materials against the present appellant submitted the charge-sheet under Section 302/201, IPC. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions which framed the charge against the accused appellant on 1-10-1999. The charge being read over and explained to the accused appellant, he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial commenced.
2. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the appellant examined eight witnesses namely Akash Chutia (P.W. 1), Bhaskar Neog (P.W. 2), Papu Singh (P.W. 3), Gopal Limboo (P.W. 4), Kanak Phukan (P.W. 5), Nandalal Jaysewal (P.W. 6), apart from Dr. M. N. Gogoi (P.W. 7) who has conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased Reena Goala and Sanjib Kumar Baruah the Investigating Officer as P.W. 8. During the course of trial P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 were, however, declared hostile as they did not support their version before the Police recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. On being permitted these witnesses were cross-examined by the prosecution. The defence did not adduce any evidence. The learned Judge after closer of evidence, examined the accused/appellant under Section 313, Cr. P.C. The trial Court on appreciation of evidences on record convicted the appellant under Section 302/201, IPC vide judgment and order dated 21-12-2000 passed in Sessions Case No. 81/99 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 (five) years for commission of offence under Section 302, IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 (four) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years under Section 201, IPC. Hence this appeal from the jail.
3. We have heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. D. Das, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondents.
4. The doctor (P.W. 7) namely Dr. M. N. Gogoi who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Reena Goala has exhibited the post-mortem report as Ext. 3. P.W. 7 in his deposition before the Court has narrated the injuries found on the body of the deceased Reena Goala which reads as follows:
Injuries
1. One faintly depressed mark in the middle part of the neck below the thyroid cartilage, encircling the neck horizontally. Size 11 cm x 3 cm. The base of the mark was pale and dry.
2. Few fingers nail marks abrasions in the side of the neck. The nail marks are crescentic. "
In the opinion of the doctor the death was caused due to asphyxia resulted from the ante-mortem strangulation of the neck by the ligature, finger (throttling) which was homicidal in nature.
5. The defence did not cross-examine the doctor and hence the injuries found on the body of Reena Goala remain unchallenged. From the nature of injuries found on the body as well as the opinion of the doctor relating to the cause of death, the prosecution could therefore establish that the death of Reena Goala was homicidal in nature.
6. The question which requires consideration by the Court, now, is whether the accused appellant was the author of such injuries.
7. As noted above, the prosecution in order to bring home the charge of murder against the appellant has produced six witnesses apar
