Back
2019 Supreme(Gau) 407
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Songkhupchung Serto, Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, JJ.
Md Mujirot Khan - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Assam - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (J) No. 14 of 2017
Decided On : 18-06-2019
S. Kanungo, Adv., T.K. Mishra, Adv., U. Das, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on strong and reliable eyewitness testimonies, along with supporting evidence, to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 302 IPC.
Headnote:
Section 302 IPC - Eyewitness Testimonies - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 302 IPC, Section 34 IPC - The court discussed the eyewitness testimonies and their reliability in establishing the accused's guilt under Section 302 IPC. The testimonies provided clear and cogent evidence, leaving no room for doubt. The court also highlighted the evidence of the investigation officer and the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination, confirming the cause of death and the nature of injuries.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an appeal against the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC for stabbing the victim to death. Eyewitness testimonies formed the crux of the evidence presented.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on the strong and reliable eyewitness testimonies, along with supporting evidence from the investigation officer and the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination.
Issues: The key issue revolved around the reliability of the eyewitness testimonies and the sufficiency of evidence to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 302 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the clear and cogent eyewitness testimonies, along with supporting evidence from the investigation officer and the doctor, to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 302 IPC.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the judgment of the trial court. The court directed the immediate return of the case record and acknowledged the valuable assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae.
JUDGMENT :
Songkhupchung Serto, J.
Heard Ms. S. Kanungo, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and also Mr. T.K. Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam and Ms. U. Das, learned counsel appearing for the informant.
2. This is a jail appeal directed against the judgment and order dated 04.01.2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Sessions Case No.43(J-J)/2012, wherein, the appellant was held guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life with a fine of Rs.20,000/- and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months in the event of default in payment of the fine imposed.
3. On 08.11.2011, an ejahar was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge of Teok Police Station in Jorhat district by Md. Derajat Khan stating that at about 3 pm of the same day his nephew Md. Saruba Khan was attacked by three persons, (i) Mujirat Khan with a knife causing injury on the left side of the chest (ii) Md. Jubarat Khan with a rod inflicting injury on the body (iii) and Md. Suleman Khan with khukri inflicting injury on the body. On receiving the ejahar, Teok P.S. Case No. 297/2011 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was registered against the three persons. On completion of the investigation, chargesheet under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was submitted by the I/O and the learned Sessions Judge found that there were materials to proceed with the trial and framed the charge under the same Sections against the three accused. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 17 PWs. After examination of the evidence of the witnesses, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that only one of the accused namely Md. Mujirat Khan is guilty of the offence charged and accordingly held him guilty and sentenced him to undergo RI for life with a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for 6 months. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order, the convict has come before this Court by filing the jail appeal.
4. Out of the 17 witnesses, we find that there are 8 eye witnesses. Since the eye witness account of this witnesses are clear, cogent and reliable, we do not find the necessity of bringing in the evidence of the other witnesses. Therefore, only the evidence given by the eye witnesses are discussed below;
(i) PW-7 stated in his examination in chief that the incident occurred about 2 years back at about 3.00 pm of one day and he also stated as follows:-
"On that day I had gone to the residence of my elder brother Muhibot Ali. Deceased Badari Khan alias Sorubap was my own son. Sorubap also had been invited to the house of Muhibot Ali and Sorubap was also on the way to his house. When Sorubap was near the entrance gate of the residence of my elder brother Muhibot Ali, I had heard people shouting that 'Marile, 'Marile''. I immediately rushed out of the house in the midst of having my lunch and saw that my son Sorubap alias Badari Khan was being attacked by Mujirot Khan. I immediately requested and appealed before Md. Mujirot Khan not to assault and hit my son but at that very moment Md. Mojirot Khan stabbed my son with a dagger. Immediately, my son Badari Khan alias Sorubap fell down on the ground and I also became unconscious."
From the above it would be seen that, the witnesses had stated that on the day of occurrence of the incident she had gone to the residence of her elder brother Muhibot Ali i.e. the place of occurrence.
In her cross examination also the witness stated that she had gone to her elder brother's residence for Eid festival and also reaffirm all that she had stated in her examination in chief.
From the evidence of this PW what one can conclude is that she saw the accused appellant Mujirot Khan stabbing the deceased Sarubap alias Badari Khan at the place of occurrence. There is nothing in the cross-examination which would contradict or discredit her eye witness account.
(ii) PW-8 stated th
