SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Gau) 1150

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN, JJ.
Mehboob Hussain - Appellant
Versus
State of Assam - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 294 of 2015
Decided On : 14-08-2018

Advocates Appeared:
N. Haque, Adv., A.R. Bhuiya, Adv., A.U. Ahmed, Adv., H. Sarma, Adv.

The main legal point established is the reliance on circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:

Conviction - Indian Penal Code - Section 302, Section 457, Section 380, Section 309, Section 27 of the Arms Act - [302, 457, 380, 309, 27]

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted for the murder of a police officer and theft of a revolver. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the appellant guilty based on the consistent testimonies of witnesses and the forensic evidence linking the appellant to the crime.

Issues: The main issue was the appellant's involvement in the murder and theft, based on circumstantial evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistent testimonies of witnesses, forensic analysis linking the appellant to the crime, and the absence of any alternative explanation from the appellant.

Final Decision: The court upheld the trial court's decision, dismissing the appeal and affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

JUDGMENT :

AJIT SINGH, J.

1. The sole appellant - Mehboob Hussain has been convicted and sentenced as follows:-

(i) Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for two years;

(ii) Under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one year;

(iii) Under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for six months;

(iv) Under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code simple imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one month;

(v) Under Section 27 of the Arms Act, rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one month. All the jail sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. The victim of the incident was Sub-Inspector Kartik Barman, aged about 44/45 years. He was the Platoon Commandant of 2nd Assam Police Task Force stationed at Rangia Police Station whereas the appellant served as constable in the said platoon.

3. According to the prosecution case, on 04/08/1994, Sub- Inspector Bipul Sarma of Rangia Police Station lodged an FIR (Exhibit-17) in his police station stating inter-alia that at about 1 a.m., the appellant had cut the chain of door of a magazine room of platoon barrack and took away the revolver allotted to Kartik Barman. He then entered into the room where Kartik Barman was sleeping and shot him on his head. Thereafter, he also tried commit suicide by shooting himself on his head. On this FIR, Case No.287/94 was registered for offences under Sections 457/380/302/309 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 (3) of the Arms Act. The dead body of Kartik Barman was sent for post mortem examination and the appellant was sent to hospital for treatment and from there he was shifted to the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital for better treatment. The appellant was treated by Dr. Jakir Hussain whose medico-legal report is Exhibit-13. The report was signed by Dr. Purajit Choudhury (PW-9). The report revealed that appellant's case was of suspected suicide. He was, therefore, arrested after he was cured and then sent to judicial custody.

4. Sub-Inspector Bipul Sarma commenced the investigation of incident during which he seized the following articles from the place of occurrence:-

(i) Vide Exhibit 6:- mosquito net, pillow with cover, .38 bullet, one blood stained small towel, one fired bullet and one pair of sandal;

(ii) Vide Exhibit 8:- one envelope containing one handkerchief, one greeting card and a letter written by M.Kalita, one wire cutting plash, one steel chain used for locking door, one sealed packet of 12 rounds of .38 revolver, one revolver cover, one arm pouch, one tin box containing torch light, hand glove and one riffle chain and one lock with two keys.

(iii) Vide Exhibit 9:- one .38 revolver containing 4 nos. of live ammunition, 2 chambers of empty bullet;

(iv) Vide Exhibit 10:- 6 nos. of .38 ammunitions.

The seized revolver and ammunitions were sent to the Forensic Laboratory.

5. Upen Bora (PW-10) the then Senior Scientific Officer of the Ballistic, Forensic Science Laboratory, Guwahati, conducted physical and chemical analysis of the .38 caliber revolver(Exhibit-A), one .38 caliber cartridge (Exhibit-B) and two .38 caliber empty fired cartridge cases (Exhibit-C-1 and C-2). Test firing was done in the laboratory through Exhbit A revolver and test fired cartridges of Exhibit-A and Exhibit-C-1 and C-2 were compared. After comparing, it was found that the fring pin impression and breach face marks of test fired cartridges and that of Exhibit-C-1 and C-2 were similar. Hence, he opined that Exhibit-C-1 and C-2 were fired through Exhibit-A revolver. His report in this regard is Exhibit 14.

6. Dr. Pratap Chandra Sarma (PW-1), the then Professor and Head of Forensic Medicine Department, Gauhati Medical














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top