Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI PRINCIPAL BENCH AT GUWAHATI
SUMAN SHYAM, PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, JJ.
Bikash Routia - Appellant
Versus
State of Assam, Rep. by PP and Another - Respondent
Crl.A(J)/73/2019
Decided on : 06-09-2021
Criminal Law - Murder - Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - [Crush injury over head and upper part of face, incised wound on hand] - The court analyzed the circumstantial evidence and discussed the principles of circumstantial evidence as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstances and prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was set at liberty.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 for causing the death of his stepmother. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence as there were no eye witnesses to the occurrence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstances and prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.
Issues: The main issue was to determine the guilt of the appellant based on circumstantial evidence and whether the prosecution had proved the charge beyond all reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the principles of circumstantial evidence as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra and emphasized the need for the circumstances to be fully established and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the appellant was set at liberty.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. A. Kalita, the learned Amicus Curiea, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.
2. This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC challenging the Judgment and Order dated 19.03.2019 and 25.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Sessions Case No. 107/2018. The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 and for that offence he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment of 5 (five) months.
3. The factual matrix giving rise to the prosecution case is - Shri Jahan Rautia (PW-1) married for the second time. From his earlier marriage PW-1 had two sons, namely, Anil Rautia (PW-3) and the appellant. All of them were staying together in the same house.
4. On the day of the occurrence, PW-1 was sleeping. The festival of Holi was celebrated on that day. While the PW-1 was sleeping, his wife Sanju Rautia was cooking meal in the kitchen. Be that as it may, in the next morning PW-1 woke up and saw that his wife Sanju Rautia was lying dead in the kitchen and at that time, he had noticed that his wife's head was crushed. He claimed that the appellant had told him that he had caused the death of the deceased by hitting her head with a hoe.
5. The PW-1 had lodged an FIR before Police stating that his youngest son/appellant has caused death of the deceased by hitting her head with a hoe inside the house. During the period of investigation, the dead-body of the deceased was subjected to post-mortem examination. The relevant part of the post-mortem examination report is quoted under:
Crush injury is present over head and upper part of fact. Skin, soft tissues, bones, vessels, nerves, meanings and brain are all crushed and partly missing. Ante-mortem blood clots are adherent to the margins which resist washing with flowing water.
An incised wound of size 2cm × 0.5 cm × muscle deep is present over dorsum of right hand near wrist joint. The wound is red in colour.”
6. Finally, on conclusion of routine investigation, Police filed the charge-sheet against the appellant.
7. On his appearance before the trial Court, the charge under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 was formally framed against the appellant. On being read over the said charge, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to stand the trial.
8. In course of the trial, as many as 9 (nine) prosecution witnesses, including the Doctor (PW-4) who had conducted post-mortem examination upon the dead-body of the deceased and the Police Investigating Officer (PW-9) were examined. Appellant was examined under Section 313 of the CrPC. All the so-called incriminating circumstances were put before the appellant. The appellant, in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, has stated that on the day of occurrence he took dinner in the house of a person called Omila Rautia and after that, he returned home and lit the earthen lamp. Appellant has stated that in the light of the earthen lamp he had noticed that his stepmother/deceased was lying in the kitchen in an injured state. The appellant further stated that he went to the room of his father/PW-1 and then saw that he was sleeping in an intoxicated condition. The appellant further stated that at that time his elder brother/PW-3 was not present in the house and, therefore, he simply went to his room to sleep. The appellant claimed that he has no knowledge as to who has caused the death of the deceased.
9. The appellant did not adduce any defence evidence.
10. On the basis of the evidence on-record, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order.
11. We have carefully gone through the prosecution evidence.
12. The PW-1 has stated in his evidence that on the night of occurrence he was sleeping. He stated that the Holi festival was celebrated on that day and while he was sleep
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
