Back
2015 Supreme(Gau) 1233
Gauhati High Court
A.k. Goswami, M.R. Pathak, JJ.
Sh. Lalremruata - Appellant
Versus
State of Mizoram - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.15(J) of 2012
Decided On : 06-05-2015
For the Appellant : Mr. Vanlalnghaka.
For the Respondent: Mr. A.K. Rokhum
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 380, 376, 376(i) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 - Offence of murder – offence of Rape - Theft in dwelling house - Appeal against conviction - An was lodged on by one who is PW1 before Officer-in-charge Police Station stating that his mother who was not keeping good health and was alone at home was found lying dead on bed by her grandson who is PW5 on when he returned home from work at around pm - It was found that her neck was broken and therefore it was suspected that it was a case of murder - It was further stated in that deceased used to keep a wallet tied to her waist and a sum of Rs to Rs which was believed to be in wallet was also found missing - He had stated that when police examined her dead body her nose was bleeding a bit and he presumed that bone of her neck was broken since her head could be moved around easily - According to him there were four very clear fingerprints seen on her neck and it seemed to him that she was strangulated by right hand - In cross-examination he indicated that he had noticed Sub-Inspector (PW8) examining private parts of deceased and he could learn that there was no sign of violence - Deceased he being a son of elder sister of the deceased - They received information on to the effect that accused had confessed that he had killed victim – Held, How it was possible for her to say that when alleged confession of strangulating victim by a green cloth came much later According to statement of PW4 cloth was not found out from place where accused allegedly stated to have put it but from a different place - Though PW6 stated that accused himself described cloth and thereupon PW4 had found out cloth - PW4 categorically stated that accused did not tell her anything about blood-stained cloth - PW4 in her evidence did not also say that cloth was blood-stained - Who is an independent witness had stated that he had noticed four distinct fingerprints on neck of victim - PW8 who was Officer-in-charge had stated in his evidence that at time of inquest he had noticed that there was bruise mark on the neck of victim - Postmortem report also refers to four small abrasions on the right side of neck of deceased - In view of above discussion Court are of considered opinion that prosecution has failed to establish and drive home case against appellant - When prosecution failed to produce any acceptable incriminating materials pointing to guilt of accused alone no reliance could have been placed on statement of accused tinder section for purpose of his conviction – Accordingly Court allow appeal set aside impugned judgment and order dated passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I and acquit accused/appellant of charges – Appeal Allowed.
1. Heard Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant/accused as well as Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Mizoram.
2. This appeal from Jail is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Aizawl in Crl. Trial No. 1229/2005 whereby the accused/appellant was convicted under section 302, IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment(RI) for life with a fine of Rs. 2,000, in default,'RJ. for 2 months. By the said judgment, the accused/appellant was also convicted under section 380, IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default, R.I for one month. The sentences are to run concurrently.
3. An ejahar was lodged on 4.8.2005 by one F. Lalhriata, who is PW1, before the Officer-in-charge, Serchhip Police Station stating that his mother Smt. Zopuii, who was not keeping good health and was alone at home, was found lying dead on the bed by her grandson Lalchhanhima, who is PW5, on 3.8.2005 when he returned home from work at around 5.30 pm. It was found that her neck was broken and, therefore, it was suspected that it was a case of murder. It was further stated in the ejahar that the deceased used to keep a wallet tied to her waist and a sum of Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 5,000, which was believed to be in the wallet, was also found missing. Accordingly, Serchhip P.S. Case No. 81/2005 under sections 302/380, IPC was registered. Police started investigation and inquest was also done on 4.8.2005. Postmortem examination was conducted. The accused/appellant was arrested on 3.9.2005. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted under sections 302/376/380, IPC against the accused/appellant. Charge under section 380/376(i)/ 302, IPC was framed and the same having been read over, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. During trial, prosecution examined 11 witnesses while the defence adduced no evidence.
5. PW1, who is son of the deceased and is working as a Constable in 2nd IR Battalion, was not present when the occurrence had taken place and he came from his place of posting on being informed about the news of his mother's death. He was informed that his mother had died due to heart failure. On his reaching home, he was told by one Vanlalchhunga, who is PW2, that his mother's death could not be as a result of heart failure, because her neck bone was broken and there was also bleeding with blood clot in her nose. He also found the wallet with the money missing and, being suspicious, lodged the ejahar. It is stated by him that Lalchhanhima, who is PW5, was the first person who had discovered the dead body of his mother.
6. PW2 was, at the relevant time, the President of YMA, which is a social organisation and he was a witness to the inquest report exhibited as Exhibit P-II. He had stated that when the police examined her dead body, her nose was bleeding a bit and he presumed that bone of her neck was broken since her head could be moved around easily. According to him, there were four very clear fingerprints seen on her neck and it seemed to him that she was strangulated by the right hand. In cross-examination, he indicated that he had noticed Sub-Inspector J. Rokima (PW8) examining the private parts of the deceased and he could learn that there was no sign of violence.
7. PW3 is the witness to seizure, Exhibit P-III, in respect of a bunch of keys (Exhibit M-I). It was stated by him that he was called by Police to the house of the accused and was told that the bunch of keys belonged to the deceased. He was also told that the keys were recovered from a pit latrine outside the house of the accused. However, he stated that he did not personally know wherefrom the keys were recovered.
8. PW4 is the daughter of the deceased and mother of PW5. It is stated by her that she had stayed up along with others the whole night and the funeral took place on 4.8.2005. Accord
