Back
2017 Supreme(Gau) 95
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND MIZORAM
AJIT SINGH & ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, JJ.
Md. Hasmat Ali and others – Appellants
Versus
The State of Assam – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2015
Decided On : 02-02-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. IH Hazarika, learned counsel
For the Respondent: Mr. M Phukan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, especially when based on circumstantial evidence.
Headnote:
Criminal Law - Conviction under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code - Section 302/34 - Summary: The court discussed the circumstantial evidence and the lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt to link the appellants to the crime. The court highlighted the absence of evidence regarding the illicit relationship, the lack of eyewitnesses, and the insufficiency of the circumstantial evidence to establish guilt. The court emphasized the benefit of doubt in favor of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Monirul Haque. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, alleging that the appellants, along with two co-accused, committed the murder.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. It highlighted the lack of evidence regarding the illicit relationship, the absence of eyewitnesses, and the insufficiency of the circumstantial evidence to establish guilt.
Issues: The main issue was the sufficiency of evidence to convict the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code based on circumstantial evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the chain of circumstances was not complete and there was a missing link among the circumstances. It highlighted the lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt regarding the alleged illicit relationship and the appellants' involvement in the crime.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants, granting them the benefit of doubt and ordering their immediate release if not wanted in any other cases.
Ajit Singh, J.
Three appellants, namely, Hasmat Ali, Mst. Sajeda Begum and Hussain Ali have been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,000/- each with default stipulation. The trial court has however acquitted two co-accused, namely, Sahar and Babul of the same charge.
2. The victim of the incident was Monirul Haque, aged about 30 years. He was the husband of Sajeda.
3. According to the prosecution case, Monirul married Sajeda about 5 years ago from the date of occurrence. He was a driver by profession and a son was born out of the wedlock with Sajeda. Although at first they lived in a rented house, but later they shifted to a house constructed on the land of Hasmat-the father of Sajeda and father-in-law of Monirul. One day, when Monirul came home in the evening he saw Sajeda and Hussain in compromising position and when he objected and told Hasmat about it, both Sajeda and Hasmat assaulted him. Hasmat allegedly even hit Monirul with a rod on his head as a result of which he had to take stitches. Monirul however did not lodge any complain to the police and only Rasikul Haque (PW-1) could come to know about the said incident. After about three months, on 25/10/2010, at about 7:30 p.m., when Monirul came home in the evening and was sitting with Ajijul (PW-16), Majid (PW-8) and Royal Islam (PW-9), he was called over phone by the appellants to their house. Thereafter, Hasmat came to Rasikul and Aminul (PW-2) and informed them that somebody had committed the murder of Monirul by hacking him on his head and neck with sharp edged weapon and his body was found on the bank of the river Manah. Ajijul, Majid, Royal, Afsar Ali (PW-11) etc. also heard about the death of Monirul and saw the dead body. Rasikul went to the bank of river Manah and saw the dead body of Monirul. Other villagers also went there coming to know about the death of Monirul. Rasikul then made Ejahar Exhibit-10 before Police Station Manikpur naming Sajeda, Hasmat and Sahar Ali @ CID.
4. In the meantime, Sub-Inspector Raghab Chandra Das (PW-24) was also informed over telephone that the dead body of Monirul was found. He therefore took up the investigation and went to the place of occurrence. There he prepared inquest report exhibit 1 of the dead body in the presence of witnesses. He then drew sketch map (Ext-13), recorded statements of witnesses, seized one dagger each from Sajeda’s house in the presence of witness Hussain (PW-6) and Robiul (PW-12) and from Hussain’s (appellant) house in presence of Royal (PW-9), Safiur (PW-10), Zakir (PW-13) and Robiul (PW-14) vide seizure lists Ext-4 and Ext-8, respectively. He also seized 3 Nokia handsets from the house of Hasmat vide seizure list Ext-9 in the presence of Afsar (PW-11), Kamir (PW-15) and Jeuti (PW-18). He even seized one handset from the possession of Afruja vide Exhibit-11 in the presence of Mahirum (PW-19), Matbar (PW-21), Hafizur (PW-22) and Nurul (PW-23). He also seized the handset of Hussain vide Ext-11, by which he called Monirul. He also got the inquest done over the dead body. He then sent the dead body of Monirul for Post-Mortem Examination.
5. Dr. Jahadur Rahman (PW-3) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Monirul. He found seven (7) incised wounds over the neck, right shoulder, parietal region and over mid portion of head and opined that Monirul died due to hemorrhage and shock from multiple incised wounds caused by sharp cutting weapon which were all ante-mortem in nature. His post mortem examination report is exhibit 3.
6. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet against the appellants and two co-accused Babul Ali and Sahar Ali was filed for an offence under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code vide Exhibit-14. It may be mentioned herein that Babul made extra-judicial confession before Nojrul (PW-4), Haider (PW-5), Hussain (PW-6), Majid (PW-8), Royal (PW-9) and Robiul (PW-12), but in presence of
