V. Dutta Gyani, J. —

This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 3Oth September, 1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in Sessions Case No.57 (K-G)/89, thereby the trial Court while acquitting the co-accused Muslumuddin and Sakur Ali, convicted the present appellant of offence punishable under section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

2. Briefly stated, prosecution case was that on 3rd May, 1987, the dead body of Tufan Dewani was found lying along the village road with multiple incised wound. It was brought home, an FIR, Ext. 5 was lodged by Md. Bakhtar Ali, PW 4, on the basis of which a case under section 302 IPC was registered and taken under investigation. During the course of investigation sniffer dogs were employed by the investigating agency and on the basis of these evidence the accused who had a long standing property dispute and log-horns in civil litigation were arrested. Certain incriminating articles, such as, Ganjee, Paijama and pair of Hawai Chappal were seized from the house of the accused and these articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, as per its report the Ganjee was found to be stained with human blood. On completion of investigation, the accused appellant along with others, since acquitted, were charge sheeted and tried for the above offence. Their defence was one of simple denial of their complicity in the crime. The trial Court while acquitting two others found the appellant guilty and convicted him as already noted above. Hence this appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised the following points : that the circumstances relied upon by the trial Court are not firmly established nor do they form such a chain as to uncrippling point to the accused appellant as to the perpetrator of the crime; even in the circumstances as relied upon by the trial Court, are taken on their face value yet, they are not compatible with the only hypothesis of guilt of the accused-appellant; lastly, these circumstances as relied upon by the trial Court have not been put to the accused in his examination under section 313 CrPC. In the instant case, as has been noted by the trial Judge, there is no eye witness to the occurrence. According to the trial Court, the prosecution case hinges on the following circumstances :

"(1) That there was a long standing enmity between accused Sabur Ali and the deceased Tufan Dewani.

(2) That there litigations between the parties and the deceased got a decree against accused Sabur Ali in a land case.

(3) That prior to the incident accused Sabur Ali had threatened the deceased Tufan Dewani that he will not be able to enjoy the fruits of the decree and he will be put to death.

(4) That the dead body was found lying at a distance of about two furlongs from the house of the accused.

(5) Accused Sabur Ali is the own brother of the deceased Tufan Dewani. The two other accused persons Muslumuddin and Sakur Ali are the son of Sabur Ali. On the date of occurrence they were in their house during the day time, but soon after recovery of the dead body, they absconded.

(6) The post crime conduct of the accused persons.

(7) The dog squad visited the place of occurrence and thereafter went straight ' to the house of the accused persons.

(8) As pointed out by the dog, two does, blood stained Ganjee, mud stained Hawai Chappal etc. were recovered from the house of the accused persons.

(9) Sereologist found human blood on the seized Ganjee of the accused.

(10) Accused Sabur Ali and Muslimuddin were found hiding in the house of PW Khabiruddin.

(11) Accused Sabur Ali made an extra judicial confession before the witnesses admitting his guilt."

4. Now taking up the dog tracking evidence first, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the same in Abdul Razak Murtaza Dafadar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1970 SC 283 and declined to give any conclud

Click Here to Read the rest of this document