Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Suman Shyam, Parthivjyoti Saikia, JJ.
Nipen Boro - Appellant
Versus
State of Assam and Another - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 275 of 2018
Decided on : 31-08-2021
Circumstantial Evidence - Murder - Penal Code, 1860, section 302 - The court analyzed the evidence and discussed the key legal provisions related to circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof. The court highlighted the weaknesses in the prosecution's case, including unexplained delays in recording witness statements and lack of corroboration for crucial evidence. The court also emphasized the importance of corroboration and the need for a strong chain of circumstances to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of a woman based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution's case relied on the appellant's love affair with the deceased, alleged extra-judicial confession, and the recovery of the dead body. The defense challenged the evidence, citing lack of corroboration and unexplained delays in recording witness statements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. It highlighted gaps in the investigation, unexplained delays in recording witness statements, and lack of corroboration for crucial evidence. The court also noted that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's case, and the charge of rape could not be established. As a result, the appellant was acquitted due to lack of evidence.
Issues: The key issues included the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the reliability of witness statements, the admissibility of the alleged confession, and the burden of proof in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of corroboration and a strong chain of circumstances in cases based on circumstantial evidence. It also highlighted the need for timely and reliable witness statements, the admissibility of confessions made in police custody, and the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted due to lack of evidence, and the impugned judgment and order were set aside. The court directed the appellant's immediate release if his custodial detention was not required in connection with any other case.
JUDGMENT :
SUMAN SHYAM, J.:
1. Heard Mr. B. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. We have also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned APP, Assam, appearing for the State/respondent No. 1. Ms. D. Saikia, learned Legal Aid Counsel has appeared for the informant/respondent No. 2.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 8.12.2017 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Udalguri, Assam, in connection with Sessions Case No. 115(U)/2015, whereby, the sole appellant Sri Nipen Boro had been convicted under section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 for committing murder of Swdwmshri Daimari and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. !
3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that the appellant had a love affair with the deceased. On 3.4.2015, the appellant had called the deceased from her home, committed rape on her and thereafter, killed her at night by strangulation and had thrown the dead body on the bank of Nonai river at Dhupguri Gaon.
4. On 4.4.2015, the Uncle of the victim, viz., Prabin Daimari (PW-1) had lodged an ejahar before the Officer in-Charge, Panery Police Station, based on which, Panery Police Station Case No. 24/2015 was registered under section 120B/376/302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). As per the usual process, the Police took up the matter for investigation and thereafter submitted charge sheetjagainst the appellant under section 120B/376/302, IPC. Based on the charge sheet, charges were framed against the appellant under section 120B/376/302, IPC and were read over and explained to him. However, since the accused-appellant had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, theimatter went up for trial.
5. There is no eye witness to the occurrence and the prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. In order to drive home the charge brought against the accused, the prosecution side had examined as many as 18 witnesses including the doctor, i.e., PW-14, who had conducted the post mortem examination and two Investigating Officers, viz., PWs 18 and 19. The prosecution had relied upon the following circumstances
(ii) The deceased was last seen in the company of the accused.
(iii) The accused had made extra-judicial confession, and
(iv) The dead body was recovered on being led by the accused.
6. Upon analyzing the evidence available on record, the learned trial court was of the view that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the chain of circumstances so as to prove the charge brought against the accused under section 302 of the IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the accused, as mentioned herein above. The appellant/accused was, however, acquitted of the charge framed under section 376, IPC due to lack of evidence.
7. Assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 8.12.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there is no evidence available on record so as to establish the chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The learned counsel submits that the dead body was recovered by the Police on being shown by some other person and not the accused. Therefore, there is no discovery of the dead body within the meaning of section 27 of the Evidence Act. Mr. Baruah further submits that there is no evidence to establish the “last seen together” circumstances and the alleged extrajudicial confession, having been made by the accused while in Police custody, was not a piece of evidence which could have been relied upon by the learned trial court so as to convict the appellant.
8. Besides the above, by relying on a decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harbeer Singh v. Sheeshpal, 2017 Cri LJ 169, Mr. Baruah submits that there has been unexplained delay in recording the statement of key wit
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
