Back
2022 Supreme(Gau) 70
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Nelson Sailo, Marli Vankung, JJ.
Vanlalpianga – Petitioner
Versus
State of Mizoram and Anr. – Respondents
Crl.A./52 of 2019
Decided On : 28-01-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr Zochhuana
For the Respondent: Mrs. Linda L Fambawl (PP/Addl.PP, Mizoram)
Point of law : The well-settled principle of law on circumstantial evidence that there should be a chain of circumstances showing complicity of the accused person with the crime and the chain should be complete.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 24 and 25 – Criminal Trial – Offence of Double Murder – Testimony of witness – Circumstantial evidence - Extra judicial confession – Admissibility of - Appeal against Conviction - Whether seized articles were actually stained with blood - Deceased was found dead inside her jhum hut and his mother deceased (65 yrs) was also found dead in jhum field about 10 meters away from the jhum hut. Both of them were seriously injured with blood stains and it was strongly suspected that they must have been brutally murdered. Hence, PS u/s 302 IPC was registered and duly investigated into.
Finding of the court :
Court find that since no blood sample of deceased victims were sent for examination to link the Forensic report to the both deceased, the Forensic report in itself cannot be of material evidence in the prosecution case. Further, we find that no evidence has been placed on record to show that the blood of the appellant belongs to ‘O+ve’ blood group, as alleged by the case I.O. - Pw 18/Inspector, the case I.O, has strangely not mentioned anything about this alleged extra judicial confession made by the appellant but instead has deposed that the accused on interrogation admitted his guilt – Provisions of sections 24 and 25 of Act, 1872 and evidence adduced as discussed above, we find that sections 24 and 25 of the Indian Evidence Act applies to the alleged extra judicial confession made before PW-13, PW-14, PW-15 and PW-16 and we are constrained to hold that the extra Judicial confession alleged to be made by the appellant before the police personals PW16, PW14, PW15 is not an admissible evidence - Based only on circumstantial evidence we are unable to agree with the submissions advanced by the learned PP. In our considered view, the prosecution evidence fail to be sufficient to enable this court to come to a conclusion that prosecution have proved their case against the appellant/accused with proof beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction of appellant set aside
Result : Criminal Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Marli Vankung, J.
Heard, Mr. Zochhuana, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram representing the State.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.02.2019 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Lunglei Judicial District, in Criminal Trial No. 97 of 2016 Ref : Saiha PS C/No. 91/2016, convicting the appellant under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing the death of two persons namely Elizabeth and Sideii. Accordingly, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- in default S.I for one year. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has approached this Court by filing the present appeal.
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the appeal is that on 08.09.2016, a written FIR was lodged by B. Clement of Chhuarlung village before the officer-in-charge of Siaha Police Station informing that on 07.09.2016 one women Elizabeth (34 yrs) was found dead inside her jhum hut and his mother Sideii (65 yrs) was also found dead in the jhum field about 10 meters away from the jhum hut. Both of them were seriously injured with blood stains and it was strongly suspected that they must have been brutally murdered. Hence, Siaha PS C/No. 91/16 dt.08.08.2016 u/s 302 IPC was registered and duly investigated into. The Police party headed by the S.P, Siaha rushed to the place of occurrence and when they reached the village, the dead bodies had already been shifted to their own respective houses at Chhuarlung village. An inquest was conducted over the dead bodies in the presence of witnesses. The dead bodies were then forwarded to the Medical Officer for Postmortem Examination (PME). The PME report of both the deceased persons was that the cause of their death was due to head injury caused by massive blows. The place of occurrence was visited and a sketch map of the same was drawn. There was bloodstain on the floor though some of the stains were partly washed away by the local NGO members who had reached the place early before information was given to the police. Bloodstained firewood, carrier rope and a hoe was seized from the P.O. Several suspected persons were interrogated and consequently, from the light of interrogations and on the interrogation of the appellant, a prima facie case against the appellant under Section 302 IPC was found and the case I.O submitted the charge sheet before the Court.
3. In due course, after committal of the case to the Court of Session, the learned Session Judge, Lunglei, commenced the trial of the case after observing all the required legal formalities.
4. A formal charge under Section 302 of IPC was framed against the appellant by the Court of Sessions Judge, Lunglei. The charge so framed was read over and explained to the appellant and to which, he pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried.
5. To bring home the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as eighteen prosecution witnesses and they were also subjected to cross-examination by the defence. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The answer given by the appellant against the questions put to him was basically that of denial. The defence examined two defence witnesses including himself.
6. After hearing the parties through their respective counsels the trial court decided the case vide the impugned Judgment & Order dated 18.02.2019, convicting the appellant and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default thereof, to undergo S.I for one year as already stated herein above.
7. Mr. Zochhuana, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the case of the prosecution is purely based on circumstantial evidence as there are no eye witnesses. He submits that it is a settled position of law in circumstantial evidence that the circumstances
