Back
2005 Supreme(Gau) 518
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
D. BISWAS AND ANIMA HAZARIKA, JJ.
Lileswar Gogoi and Ors. – Appellant
Vs.
State of Assam – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 207(j) of 2000
Decided On: 19.07.2005
Advocate Appeared
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Bandana Acharyya, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: Pran Bora, Adv.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of voluntary and verifiable confessions, the need for evidence to establish common intention under Section 34 IPC, and the requirement for clear and reliable evidence in criminal cases.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 - 302, 34
Fact of the Case:
Three family members faced trial for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the accused killed a co-villager and injured others. The trial court convicted the accused based on evidence and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence, including extra-judicial confessions, marks of dragging, and recovery of weapons. It found the prosecution's case doubtful regarding the involvement of one accused. The court also considered the absence of a clear plan or meeting of minds among the accused, leading to the acquittal of two accused and confirmation of the conviction of one accused.
Issues: The issues included the reliability of extra-judicial confessions, marks of dragging, absconding of accused, recovery of weapons, and the application of Section 34 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for voluntary and verifiable extra-judicial confessions, the significance of dragging marks, the inference from absconding, and the requirement to establish a common intention under Section 34 IPC.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction of two accused due to doubts in the prosecution's case and confirmed the conviction of one accused based on the failure to prove a common intention under Section 34 IPC.
1. Three persons from the same family faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in the IPC). The appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000 each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two(2) years more each.
2. The Instant appeal has been preferred from jail, being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.6.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, in Session case No. 92 of 1999, convicting them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC as aforesaid.
3. The prosecution version in nutshell as follows :
Banshidhar Gogoi (P.W.I) who was the father of Lakhi Gogoi (hereinafter referred to as deceased), lodged the FIR alleging that, at about 8 PM on 13.4.1997 the accused Lileswar Gogoi had called his co-villager Lakhi Gogoi to their house, whereupon two other accused Naren Gogoi and Akan Gogoi killed Lakhi Gogoi and thereafter dragged the body and threw the body in the Dhonda Nagar Gaon field. Apart from the killing of the deceased, the accused Naren Gogoi had injured many of his co-villagers hacking with dao.
4. On receipt of the ejahar by the Officer-in-Charge Bhadoi Pachali Police outpost on 14.4.1997, the same was forwarded to the officer-in-charge, Duliajan for registering the case and accordingly registered as Duliajan P.S. Case No. 48/97 under Section 324/302/201/34 IPC.
5. After registering the case on the basis of FIR Ext. I the investigating Officer (P.W.9), came to the spot for investigation. At the spot the I.O. prepared the inquest on the body of the deceased, seized a blood stained iron rod and a blood stained short hoe, prepared a rough sketch map of the place of occurrence, recorded the statements and send the dead body of the deceased to Assam Medial College Hospital for Postmortem, where the postmortem was conducted by Dr. R.K. Gogoi, who opined that the deceased died on account of shock and haemorrhage resulting from 12 injuries sustained.
6. After completing the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted in the competent Court, which on turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where the accused persons were tried.
7. Learned trial Judge after going through charge sheet, framed charge punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC which were denied by the accused appellants. In order to prove charge, the prosecution examined as many as 10(ten) witnesses and placed Ext-1 to Ext-4 the documents on record. The defence of accused persons are of total denial; however, they did not choose to examine any witness in their defence.
8. Learned trial Judge, after scrutinizing the evidence came to hold that, the appellants did commit offence for which they were charged, as a result of which convicted the accused appellants and passed sentences, as mentioned hereinabove and hence this appeal.
9. In this appeal Smti. B. Acharyya. appointed as Amicus Curiae, has contended the following points, viz ;
(a) The Extra-judicial confession made by accused Lileswar Gogoi to PW-1, in regard to commission of offence by accused Akan, brother Dilip Gogoi and Naren Gogoi can be the sole basis of conviction.
(b) The Extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the wife to the Police that accused Akan and his sons together had killed Lakhi as stated by PW-2 can be the factor of conviction in the criminal trial.
(c) The Extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the mother to P.W.3 on the crime that these persons have committed the murder can be relied upon in convicting the accused persons.
(d) The Extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused Lileswar to PW-4 that his brother and father had committed the murder and the wife of Akan had admitted that accused Naren, Akan and other accused persons in a body had killed Lakhi can be relied upon in convicting the accused.
(e) The prosecution has establish
