Back
2020 Supreme(Gau) 332
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Manash Ranjan Pathak, Manish Choudhury, JJ.
Smt. Kalpana Baishya - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam & Ors. - Respondents
CRL.A (J) 55 of 2016
Decided On : 26-06-2020
For the Appellant : Mrs. Soumitra Saikia, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondents: Ms. Shamima Jahan, Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and consistent evidence, the need for corroborative evidence, and the principle of giving the benefit of doubt to the accused when two views are possible based on the evidence.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Murder - Section 302 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly strangling her husband to death. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of a witness who claimed to have seen the accused dragging her husband into the house and laying him on a bed. The medical evidence indicated death due to asphyxia following homicidal manual strangulation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, particularly the witness testimony, was not wholly reliable. The court noted inconsistencies and embellishments in the witness testimony, and highlighted the lack of corroboration from other sources. The court also questioned the medical evidence, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence and the possibility of alternative explanations for the injuries sustained by the deceased.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability of witness testimony, the sufficiency of medical evidence, and the absence of corroborative evidence. The court also considered the absence of a motive for the accused to commit the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for reliable and consistent witness testimony, the importance of corroborative evidence, and the requirement to consider alternative explanations for medical evidence. The court also highlighted the principle of giving the benefit of doubt to the accused when two views are possible based on the evidence.
Final Decision: The accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code due to the failure of the prosecution to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt.
JUDGMENT :
Manish Choudhury, J.
The judgment and order dated 29.04.2016, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari, Assam in Sessions Case No. 69/2013 (G.R. Case No. 100/2013(8)), convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, in short) and sentencing her to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees two thousand), in default, to suffer further imprisonment for a period of 2 (two) months, is the subject matter of challenge in the instant jail appeal.
2. The prosecution was set in motion by an Ejahar (Exhibit-1) dated 28.03.2013, lodged by one Smti. Arati Baishya (PW.2), wife of Dilip Baishya, resident of Adabari Kanimara Supa, Police Station-Mushalpur, District-Baksa (BTAD), Assam before the Officer-in-Charge, Mushalpur Police Station alleging, inter-alia, that on 28.03.2013 at around 11:00 a.m., her covillager Kalpana Baishya strangled her husband Sada Baishya with a sari and kept his body on a bed. In the said Ejahar, the informant had further mentioned Smti. Saraswati Baishya (PW.1), a resident of the same village, as an eyewitness.
3. On receipt of the aforesaid Ejahar on 28.03.2013, the Officer-in-Charge, Mushalpur Police Station registered a case being Mushalpur Police Station Case No. 26/2013 under Section 302, IPC and the investigation in respect of the death of the deceased, Sada Baishya was started. A corresponding G.R. Case was also registered being G.R. Case No.100/2013(8). In the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O., in short) arrested the accused on 29.03.2013.
4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence and drew sketch map of the place of occurrence (Exhibit-6) and got the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C., in short). The I.O. after causing inquest over the dead body of the deceased, prepared the Inquest Report (Exhibit-5). Thereafter, the dead body was sent for Post-Mortem Examination to the Swahid Mukunda Kakati (SMK) Civil Hospital, Nalbari and after the Post-Mortem Examination conducted on 29.03.2013, the Post-Mortem Examination Report (Exhibit-3) was prepared. The statement of Smti. Saraswati Baishya (PW.1) was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 02.04.2013 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nalbari vide Exhibit-8. On completion of investigation, Charge Sheet No. 27/2013 dated 15.05.2013 (Exhibit-7) under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the I.O. in said Mushalpur PS Case No. 26/2013 finding a primafacie case under Section 302 IPC against the accused-appellant. At the time of filing of said Charge Sheet as the accused-appellant was in jail custody, she was shown to be in custody in the Charge Sheet.
5. On appearance of the accused before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari by causing her production from custody, the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished to the accused. As the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari by an Order under Section 209 Cr.P.C. dated 25.06.2013 committed the case record of said G.R. Case No. 100/2013(8) to the learned Court of Sessions, Nalbari.
6. On receipt of the case record of said G.R. Case on transfer, pursuant to said commitment, it was renumbered in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari as Sessions Case No. 69/2013. Upon hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the State defence counsel on the point of charge and on perusal of the case records, the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari on 16.07.2013 framed a charge under Section 302 of the IPC against the accused in terms of Section 228(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. The charge on being read over and explained to the accused, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. During the course of trial, 8 (eight) witnesses including the I.O. and the autopsy doctor, were examined by the prosecution side a
