SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Gau) 374

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
N. KOTISWAR SINGH, MANISH CHOUDHURY, JJ.
Nitul Duarah Ivasagar - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam - Respondents
CRL.A.(J) 93 of 2019
Decided on : 14-09-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Meghali Barman, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent: Mr. P. Borthakur, Mr. U. Choudhury, Legal Aid

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 173(2), 207, 209 and 313 – Offence of murder – Examination of accused - First Information Report was lodged before the Officer In-Charge Police Station, District - Alleging, inter alia, that at around 1030 a.m. on that day, his younger brother had a quarrel with the accused, Sri Nitul Duara from the same village - In course of quarrel, the accused assaulted Akoni Chetiya with a saw and as a result of assault sustained grievous injury - He was immediately taken to and admitted Community Health Centre - Due to excessive loss of blood, Akoni Chetiya was thereafter, sent to Assam Medical College & Hospital [AMCH] at Dibrugarh. But, he was declared dead at AMCH -

Held, Medical evidence and ocular evidence cannot be said to be consistent with each other - Though ocular testimony of witnesses has greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence - Evidence has improbabilised version regarding weapon on assault to a great extent - Cogent and reliable evidence and to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubts - If upon evaluation of the evidence it gives rise to a doubt as to whether accused was really perpetrator of crime or not then benefit of doubt, as per principles of criminal jurisprudence, should go to the accused - If discrepancies on material aspects are found in case of prosecution, thereby, probabilising a situation that accused who has been charged of committing the crime might or might not be the perpetrator then the accused is to be given benefit of doubt - Evidence led by the prosecution in case in hand – Court’s view that prosecution has failed to bring home the charge of murder under Section 302, IPC beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused-appellant - Criminal appeal succeed

JUDGMENT :

Manish Choudhury, J

This Criminal Appeal from jail is preferred against a judgment and order dated 05.04.2019 passed by the trial court of learned Sessions Judge, Sivasagar in Sessions Case no. 03(S-S)/2019. By the said judgment and order dated 05.04.2019, the learned trial court has convicted the accused-appellant for the offence of murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code [IPC] and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for further 1 [one] month.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.09.2019, one First Information Report [FIR] was lodged before the Officer In-Charge, Bakata Nemuguri Police Station, District – Sivasagar by one Sri Cheni Chetiya [P.W.1] alleging, inter alia, that at around 1030 a.m. on that day, his younger brother, Akoni Chetiya had a quarrel with the accused, Sri Nitul Duara from the same village. In the course of quarrel, the accused assaulted Akoni Chetiya with a saw and as a result of the assault, Akoni Chetiya sustained grievous injury. He was immediately taken to and admitted at Bakata Konwarting Community Health Centre. Due to excessive loss of blood, Akoni Chetiya was thereafter, sent to Assam Medical College & Hospital [AMCH] at Dibrugarh. But, he was declared dead at the AMCH.

3. On receipt of the FIR [Ext-3], the Officer In-Charge, Bakata Nemuguri Police Station registered a case being Bakata Nemuguri Police Station Case no. 28/2018 [G.R. Case no. 1726/2018] under Section 302, IPC and taken up investigation of the case himself as the Investigating Officer [I.O.].

4. After registration of the case, Sri Prabhat Saikia [P.W.8], the I.O. visited the place of occurrence and prepared a sketch map of the place of occurrence [Ext-4]. On the date of the incident itself i.e. on 26.09.2018, the accused was taken into custody. The statements of the witnesses were recorded by the I.O. One saw was seized by the I.O. on 26.09.2018 by a seizure list [Ext-2] in presence of witnesses and the same was stated to have been seized from the accused. An inquest report [Ext-5] was prepared by the I.O. at the Casualty Department, AMCH on 27.09.2018. Thereafter, the post-mortem examination on the deadbody of the deceased was conducted at the AMCH on 27.09.2018 and a postmortem examination report [Ext-1] was prepared. After completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted a charge sheet under Section 173(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC] vide Charge Sheet no. 19/2018 dated 29.11.2018 finding sufficient evidence against the accused in custody to put him on trial for the offence of murder under Section 302, IPC.

5. On submission of the charge sheet, the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sivasagar after complying with the provisions of Section 207, CrPC by furnishing copies to the accused, committed the case record of G.R. Case no. 1726/2018 to the Court of Sessions, Sivasagar in terms of the provisions of Section 209, CrPC by the order of commitment dated 27.12.2018 as the offence under Section 302, IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.

6. On receipt of the case records on 03.01.2019, pursuant to the order of commitment, the Court of Sessions, Sivasagar registered the case as Sessions Case no. 03(S-S)/2019. As the accused was in jail custody, his production was caused from jail custody. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel for the accused on the point of charge and upon consideration of the record of the case, the learned trial court framed a charge under Section 302, IPC against the accused on 03.01.2019. When the particulars of the charge was read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. During the course of trial, the prosecution side examined as many as 8 [eight] prosecution witnesses [P.Ws] in order to bring home the charge against the accused apart from ex

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top