Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Mir Alfaz Ali, S. Hukato Swu, JJ.
Mania Munda - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Assam - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (J) No. 53 of 2016
Decided On : 11-12-2019
Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - IPC 302 - Evidence Act
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under section 302 IPC for the death of the deceased, based on circumstantial evidence. The primary circumstance relied upon was the appellant's presence at the time of the occurrence and the assumption that he had special knowledge of how the death occurred.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had special knowledge of the occurrence. The chain of events remained incomplete, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were set aside.
Issues: The key issue was whether the appellant's failure to explain the circumstances, as observed by the trial court, could be considered an incriminating circumstance against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt lies with the prosecution. The failure of the appellant to explain the circumstances could not be considered an incriminating circumstance against the appellant, as the prosecution did not prove the appellant's special knowledge of the occurrence beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence of the appellant were set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
JUDGMENT :
Mir Alfaz Ali, J.
Heard learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Z. Alam for the appellant, learned Addl. P.P., Ms. S. Jahan for the State-respondent No.1 and Mr. M.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/informant.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19-05-2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia in Sessions Case No.46(T)/2010, By the said judgment, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.
3. An FIR was lodged by Dilip Kr. Sonowal (PW-1), alleging, that on 09-01-2008 at about 2.30 pm, upon receiving a phone call from the neighbourer of the deceased, that an incident had taken place in the house of the deceased, he rushed to her house and found the deceased Dalima lying in a pool of blood. Immediately they shifted the deceased to the hospital. However, she succumbed to the injuries. It was also alleged in the FIR that one Arati was working as a maid in the house of the deceased. On the basis of the said FIR, police registered Tinsukia P.S. No. 25/2008 u/s 448/302 and commenced investigation. In course of investigation, police recorded the statement of the witnesses, seized various suspected incriminating articles, prepared the inquest report and sent the body for post mortem examination. Dr. Netramoni Kakoti (PW-26) conducted the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased.
4. The autopsy doctor (PW-26), who conducted post mortem examination found the following injuries :-
2. 1 x 1 x 1 inch laceration seen on the left hand, dorsal aspect.
3. Deep penetrating injury at left iliac region and left flanks measuring 1 x 1 inch and 1 x 1 inch at the entry point respectively.
4. Multiple penetrating injuries perforating the large intestine are seen.
5. Left kidney was found ruptured with penetrating injury.
6. Urinary bladder ruptured. Left lung, pericardium of the heart was found ruptured.
7. Left chamber of the heart are perforated and empty.
In the opinion of the doctor death was caused due to coma resulting from the injuries on the head. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and caused by sharp cutting heavy weapon as well as by blunt force impact, which were homicidal in nature. Approximate time of death was 12 to 24 hours before the post mortem examination.
5. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the four accused persons including the present appellant. Two of the charge-sheeted accused absconded and eventually the present appellant and another stood trial.
6. In course of trial, charges were framed against both the accused persons u/s 302/448 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty. Thirty witnesses were examined by the prosecution to establish the charges against the accused persons. One court witness was also examined by the trial court. On appreciation of evidence, learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused persons u/s 302 IPC and awarded sentence as indicated above.
7. Learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Alam submits that conviction was based on the lone circumstance that appellant was present in the home of the deceased at the time of occurrence and he failed to offer any explanation as to how the occurrence took place. Mr. Alam submits with vehemence that there was no evidence to attribute any special knowledge to the appellant, so as to put a burden on the appellant u/s 106 of the Evidence Act to explain as to how the death of the victim was caused, and as such, conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be sustained.
8. Supporting the conviction and sentence of the appellant, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Ms. S. Jahan and learned counsel representing the informant/respondent No.1, Mr. M.K. Sharma submits, that presence o
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
