Back
1996 Supreme(Gau) 2
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
D.N.Baruah, S.L.Saraf, JJ.
Dulal Sonowal -Appellant
Versus
State of Assam -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1995
Decided On : 08-01-1996
P.J.Saikia, N.K.Barua, D.Goswami, C.Barua
Insufficiency of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Conviction - Murder - Section 302, IPC - 147/148/149,448/436/302, IPC
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Jyoti Gogoi based on the testimony of prosecution witnesses and post mortem examination. The defense argued that the evidence was contradictory and insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found contradictions in the prosecution witnesses' statements and the post mortem examination supported the defense's suggestion that the incident may have occurred earlier than claimed. The court concluded that the evidence was too meager to sustain a conviction for murder.
Issues: Contradictions in witness statements, timing of the incident, and sufficiency of evidence for conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that contradictions in witness statements and the support of the post mortem examination for the defense's suggestion led to the conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused appellant was acquitted.
2. Smti Aruna Gogoi sister of Jyoti Gogoi (since deceased lodged an FIR on 13.3.90 before the Officer-in-charge of Joypur Police Station informing that on 13.3.90 at about 7.30 AM the appellant and 22 others came in search of her brother Jyoti Gogoi. They entered into his house and assaulted her, set fire in the house. Thereafter the accused persons broke open the door of her house, dragged her brother Jyoti Gogoi to the courtyard and cut him with dao, khukuri, lathi etc causing instataneous death. FIR was lodged with the police at 10 AM on the same day. Police registered a case and commenced investigation. During investigation police made inquest over the dead body and thereafter sent the dead body for post mortem examination. On being identified, doctor held the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. Police also seized some article including a dao from the possession of Kanak who was one of the accused before the trial Court. Police thereafter submitted charge sheet under section 147/148/149,448/436/302, IPC. Charaes were framed.
3. During the trial learned Additional Sessions Judge examined as many as 9 witnesses for the prosecution including the doctor who held the post mortem examination and also the Investigating Officer. Defence examined none. According to the prosecution there were three eye witnesses, namely PW 1, PW 2 and PW 7. After recording of evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under section 313, CrPC. Learned Additional Sessions Judge found 22 accused persons not guilty and acquitted them. Learned Judge however found two accused persons, viz Rohini Gogoi and Gautam Borah guilty under section 448 and convicted and sentenced them accordingly. The apellant was found guilty under section 302, IPC. After hearing on the point of sentence learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced him to suffer RJ for life. Hence the present appeal.
4. We have heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel for the accused appellant and Mr. D. Goswami, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
5. Mr. Baruah submits before us that the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in law and on facts in convicting the appellant under section 302, IPC and sentencing him to suffer RI for life. According to him the accused appellant ought to have been given the benefit of doubt as the prosecution could not prove the case beyond doubt to convict the appellant under section 302, IPC or in other sections of the Penal Code. Mr. D. Goswami, learned Public Prosecutor on the otherhand has supported the conviction. According to him the evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 7 are enough to award the conviction under section 302, IPC and therefore the appeaj deserves dismissal.
6. PW 1 in her evidence before the police stated that the accused persons came to her house and when asked they answered that there were many things to say. All the accuseds were armed with deadly weapons like dao, lathi etc in their hands. They cut the wall of the house and entered the house through the door and pulled out Jyoti who was hiding under the bed. Gautam gave one blow and knocked him down, Kanak Bora gave blow on the head with his mit dao, Dulal snatched the dao from Kanak and gave 3 blow on Jyoti's neck and also hit him on his head. Thereafter, the accused burnt Jyoti's house and left. However, in cross examination she stated that she told the writer of the ejahar that Gautam had given one blow and knocked him down, Kanak had given dao blows on the head and the other had given-blows on the head by stick. She also told police that after beating Jyoti, Ranj it set fire to Jyoti's house.
7. PW 7 Nipen Gogoi in his deposi
