The importance of complete chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt in criminal trials based on circumstantial evidence and the benefit of doubt in case of incomplete chain of circumstances.

JUDGMENT

Mir Alfaz Ali, J. - Heard Mr. Atal Tiwari, learned Amicus Curie and Mr. B. Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 135(T)/2013, whereby, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with default stipulation.

3. As per prosecution case, on 11.10.2010 at about 06.00 p.m., some unknown persons inflicted injury on the head of the victim Haren Tanti by means of a sharp weapon, whereupon the P.W.1, mother of the victim, lodged an FIR on the basis of which, police registered Doomdooma Police Station Case No. 344/2010 under Section 324/34 I.P.C.

4. During investigation, the victim succumbed to the injury and therefore, Section 302 I.P.C. was added on the prayer of the Investigation Officer. On conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was laid against the 3 (three) persons including the present appellant and eventually all of them stood the trial.

5. During the trial, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. against all the 3 (three) accused persons including the present appellant, to which, they pleaded not guilty. 10 (ten) witnesses were examined by the prosecution in order to bring home the charge against the accused persons. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the present appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and awarded sentence as indicated above. However, the other two accused persons were acquitted and set at liberty.

6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. We have also scrutinised the evidence brought on record.

7. Apparently, there was no eye witness having seen the occurrence of assault and the learned Sessions Judge basically relying on the circumstantial evidence emerged from the oral testimony of P.W.3, recorded the conviction of the appellant in the instant case. P.W.3 testified that hearing cries of Sukur and the deceased, he rushed to the place of occurrence being the house of Sukur and found the deceased lying on the ground in the courtyard of Sukur. He also stated to have seen Kamal, Sukur and Atul at the place of occurrence. According to him, Kamal was armed with an axe like weapon (Tangi) in his hand and he also noticed injury on the head of the deceased. Immediately, he called his younger brother Narayan Sawashi and took the victim to Raidang Hospital. From the crossexamination of this witness and the testimony of P.W.6, the Investigation Officer, it is apparent, that he did not state in his previous statement before the police, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., that he had seen any axe like article in the hands of the accused Kamal. Apparently, this witness was a post-occurrence witness, as he came after the occurrence was already over and found the victim lying with injury. Therefore, omission on the part of P.W.3 to state before the police the material fact, that he had seen the appellant Kamal with an axe like thing, in his hand, in our considered view cannot be considered as an insignificant omission, and such omission of material fact in the previous statement certainly amounted to contradiction, casting a doubt on the veracity of the oral testimony of the P.W.3, with regard to his testimony of seeing an axe like weapon in the hand of the appellant Kamal. In view of the above contradiction on material facts, the testimony of P.W.3, that he had seen the accused Kamal with any axe like weapon in his hand is hardly worthy of inspiring confidence.

8. Besides the P.W.3, there was no other witness of the occurrence, in as much, all other oral evidences were hearsay, except P.W.9, who was declared hostile. Although P.W.1 stated that he had come to know about the occurrence from Bijoy Manki (