Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI AT ITANAGAR BENCH
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, NANI TAGIA, JJ.
Guddu Tanti - Appellant
Versus
State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 05 (J) (AP) of 2018
Decided On : 29-07-2019
Indian Penal Code – Section 84 302 304 Part II – Code of Criminal Procedure – Section 164 313 374 – Indian Evidence Act – Section 27 – Appeal Against Conviction U/s 302 IPC – The present Appeal against a judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, in Sessions Case – By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life – Counsel acting as Amicus Curiae, has submitted that the conviction is not in accordance with law and therefore warrants interference – Held, Admittedly, the present is a case of circumstantial evidence – Two corroborative factors which would be relevant is the confession made under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and the applicability of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act with regard to discovery of the severed head at the instance of appellant – There is yet another significant factor which would be require some attention of this Court, namely, the mental condition of the appellant/accused – The confession report does not indicate that prior to the same, the accused was given the required time and environment to bring in voluntariness in his confession – It is also not stated under whose company or supervision the accused was kept during the time of reflection – The learned Magistrate himself has said that not less than half an hour time was given for reflection. This, in the opinion of the Court is not an adequate or reasonable time – In that view of the matter, conviction based on the aforesaid confession would not be justified at all – There are sufficient materials to show that it was the accused appellant who had led to the discovery of the separated head of the deceased. In fact, such statement is also admitted by the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C – It is a settled principle of law that a conviction can be based on the doctrine of "leading to discovery" – Therefore, in view of the existence of sufficient materials, the conviction can be sustained on the basis of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act – The last question which arises for consideration is the mental condition of the appellant accused – It is seen from the depositions as well as the conduct of the appellant that he does not appear to be a person of a sound mind and admittedly, he was in custody in another case and after coming out thereof, he had undertaken treatment of mental unsoundness – In view of the above, interest of justice would be served if the conviction is altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC and the sentence is modified to a period which has already been undergone by the accused appellant – In view of the same, the appellant be released from custody forthwith, if not required to be in custody in connection with any other case – Since the appellant appears to be mentally unstable and without any family, steps may be taken to put him in an Asylum or Care home where he can be given proper treatment – Appeal Disposed Of
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
1. The present Appeal has been preferred form Jail under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against a judgment and order dated 7.5.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Sessions Division, Tezu, Lohit District in Sessions Case No. 49 (CLG)/2012. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
2. We have heard Shri T.T. Tara, learned counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae for the appellant as well as Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, State of Arunachal Pradesh.
3. The brief facts of the case may be narrated as follows.
4. An FIR was lodged on 20.11.2011 by one Smt. Boijayanti Deori (PW-1) stating that on the said date, her husband Jotin Deori (deceased) had gone out to the cultivation field with his servant known as Goddu (the appellant herein) and did not return till the evening. As a result, she along with her brother-in-law, Shri Chandra Deori (PW-2) had gone out in search and found the dead body of her husband half buried in the cultivation field with the head missing. The servant was found missing from the place of occurrence.
5. Accordingly, the investigation started and on the next morning, the head of the deceased was found from the place nearby the place of occurrence which was identified by the appellant, who was found hiding in the nearby field. After investigation, charges were framed and the trial had started.
6. The prosecution side had examined 16 (sixteen) numbers of witnesses including Shri Dakto Riba, Judicial Magistrate, before whom a confession under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was made.
7. Admittedly, the present is not a case where there were eye witnesses and it is a case where the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. As has been held by the Apex Court in a number of decisions that it is the duty of the Court while considering a case based on circumstantial evidence to see whether the chain of events leading to the guilt of the accused is a continuous one without any break, wheresoever and the conclusion regarding the involvement of the accused is the only conclusion that can be reached. With that backdrop, the present conviction has to be examined by us acting as the Appellate Court. Moreover, as an Appellate Court, we cannot be oblivious of the other facts which were on record and needed to be taken into consideration.
8. Since there were no eye witnesses in this case, detailed narration of the depositions may not be necessary for disposal of this Appeal. However, it would be prudent to put the gist of the depositions of the witnesses and the materials which were before the learned Trial Court.
9. As stated above, PW-1 is the informant, who is the wife of the deceased. She had proved the FIR and stated that at about 12.00 noon, her husband had gone out to the cultivation filed along with the accused and as he did not come back by the evening, on search made along with her brother-in-law (PW-2), the beheaded body of her husband was found in the evening. PW-2, who is the brother of the deceased, corroborated the version of PW-1 and also deposed to have found 2 (two) numbers of spades on the spot having blood stains and that the appellant was missing. He had further stated that on the next morning, the appellant was arrested from the jungle area near the place of occurrence having full of blood on his body and face where he had admitted to have killed the deceased. Upon his arrest by the Police, he had brought back the head of the deceased. PW-3 is a cousin of the deceased, who also corroborated that the appellant had taken the people to the place where the head of the deceased was hidden. PW-4 is the son-in-law of the deceased, who had brought the accused as a household servant to the family of the deceased. PW-5 is the daughter of the deceased, who had deposed on the basis of the information received by her. PW-6 is a co-villager and was present wh
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
