Back
2021 Supreme(Gau) 492
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SUMAN SHYAM, MARLI VANKUNG, JJ.
Rameswar Kakoti S/O Motiram Kakoti – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And Anr - Respondents
Crl.A./198/2015, Crl.A./4/2016, Crl.A./215/2017
Decided on : 12-11-2021
Advocate Appeared:
MR.D K BHATTACHARYYA, MR.G N SAHEWALLA, MR.K MUNIR
Point of Law: Any confession made by the accused person during the course of investigation and while in police custody would be inadmissible evidence.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 302/325/34, Section 380 - Arms Act -- Section 25(1-A)/27 - Unidentified miscreants had shot dead informant father - Miscreants had also caused injuries -Circumstantial evidence- No eyewitness to the occurrence -Recovery of the burnt mobile handset belonging to the deceased from the safety tank of the house of appellant –Confession statement.
Finding of the Court:
Prosecution case is heavily dependent on the testimony of PW-1 in so far as the conviction of appellant Rameswar Kakoti is concerned. In so far as the conviction of appellant Mahesh Lahori is concerned, the same is evidently on the basis of the testimony of PWs- 3, 5, 10 and 16 as well as the TIP conducted with the endorsement of PW-13 whereby the PW-1 had identified him as one of the assailants -prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charges brought against the appellants Rameswar Kakoti and Mahesh Lahori beyond reasonable doubt. As such, no interference with their conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial court by the impugned judgment and order dated 06.07.2015, in our considered opinion, is called for in these appeals-fact that the I.O. had deposed before the court as regards the alleged confession of the accused persons pertaining to the conspiracy theory, as noticed above, not being evidence admissible in law and in the absence of any other evidence available on record to corroborate the I.O. as regards the complicity of the acquitted accused persons, we do not see any good ground to reverse the finding of the learned trial court in so far as the acquittal of the five accused persons is concerned.
Result: Appeals dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. A.K. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. K. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.198/2015, Mr. S.S.S. Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.4/2016 and Mr. P. Bora, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.215/2017. We have also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, representing the State in all these appeals and Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 in Crl. Appeal No.198/2015. Mr. K. Munir, learned counsel, has appeared for the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 in Crl. Appeal No.215/2017.
2. These three appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 06.07.2015 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kamrup, Rangia, in connection with Sessions Case No.231/2010 and as such, we propose to dispose of the three appeals by this common judgment. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the appeals may be noticed hereunder.
3. On 13.12.2007 Sri Dipankar Singha Lahkar, son of Late Munindra Singha Lahkar had lodged an ejahar with the Officer-in-Charge, Rangia Police Station informing that on 13.12.2007, at about 7.30 p.m. 3 unidentified miscreants had shot dead his father Munindra Singha Lahkar in their residence at Ward No.3 of Rangia Town and fled the scene. The miscreants had also caused injuries to his cook Sri Dipak Nath by striking him on his head. A request was, therefore, made to the police to look into the matter and take necessary steps to nab the culprits.
4. Based on the aforesaid ejahar, Rangia P.S. Case No.534/2007 was registered under Sections 302/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25(1-A)/27 of the Arms Act. The Officer-in-Charge of the Rangia P.S. had entrusted the matter to Sri M. K. Acharjee (SI) to conduct investigation in connection with the aforesaid police case. During the course of investigation the I.O. had recorded the statements of a number of witnesses, collected call details in respect of the mobile phone belonging to the deceased, which was apparently taken away by the miscreants, made recovery of the damaged mobile handset and seized other articles connected with the incident. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination at the Guwahati Medical College & Hospital, Guwahati and the ammunitions seized by the I.O. was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The I.O. had thereafter collected the postmortem report as well as the FSL report and upon completion of investigation, Charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 120(B)/302/324/380 of the IPC against seven accused persons viz., Rameswar Kakoti, Mahesh Lahori, Ashok Kumar Saloi, Pulin Sarmah, Promod Kalita, Bokul Boro and Akon Barman. Another accused persons viz., Kabul Singh Basumatary was released on bail during investigation and subsequently, he was proclaimed as an absconder.
5. Based on the charge-sheet submitted by the I.O. the learned trial court had framed charges against all the seven accused persons under sections 302/34 IPC. Charge was also framed against accused Mahesh Lahori under sections 324/380/34 IPC. Since the accused persons had denied the charges framed against them, they were made to face the trial. During trial, the prosecution had projected that the accused Rameswar Kakoti had hatched a conspiracy with the co-accused persons to commit the murder of Munindra Singha Lahkar. In furtherance of such conspiracy, three youths belonging to the “Bodo” community were hired as contract killers. On the day of the incident, accused Rameswar Kakoti had deliberately left the iron gate open allowing the three youths to enter the house of the deceased. On entering the house one of the boys had attacked the cook Deepak Nath by striking him on his head. The three boys then went upstairs following the accused Rameswar Kakoti and one of them shot the deceased by a pistol. The boys then fled the place. At the conclusion of trial the learned Sessio
