IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SUMAN SHYAM, MALASRI NANDI, JJ.
GOBIND SINGHAL S/O- SHRI RADHESHYAM SINGHAL - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM - Respondent
Crl.A. 350, 396 of 2019
Decided On : 08-04-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120(B)/201/302 - Committing the murder of deceased - Conspiracy hatched by them and also for destroying evidence.
Finding of the Court:
During trial involving heinous crimes, the accused must also be afforded a fair opportunity to defend his interest. In the present case, the A-1 has been found guilty by the learned trial court for committing the murder of the deceased Sweta Agarwal and accordingly, he has been sentenced to death. The evidence brought on record, in the ultimate analysis, may or may not be sufficient to establish the charge brought against A-1 beyond reasonable doubt. If the murder charge is proved as per law then the accused may also deserve stringent punishmen.
Result: Criminal Appeal allowed
JUDGEMENT :
Suman Shyam, J.
Heard Dr. Y. M. Choudhury assisted by Mr. D. K. Bhattacharyya and Ms. R. Gonsalvez, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. M. Phukan, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State. Ms. R. D. Mazumdar, learned Legal Aid Counsel is present on behalf of the informant.
1. By the impugned judgment dated 30.07.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Sessions Case No.69/2018 the three appellants viz., Gobind Singhal (A-1), Kamali Devi Singhal (A-2) and Bhabani Singhal (A-3) were convicted under Sections 120(B)/201/302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of deceased Sweta Agarwal based on a conspiracy hatched by them and also for destroying evidence. The A-1 Gobind Singhal, who is the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.350/2019, was awarded death sentence for committing the offence under section 302 IPC and also to pay fine of Rs 10,000/-. Death Sentence Reference No.3/2019 has been preferred by the State for confirmation of the death sentence. The A-1 has also been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs 5000/-for committing the offence under section 120-B of the IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs 5000/-for committing offence under section 201 of IPC.
2. The A-2 and A-3 were awarded imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs 10,000/-each for committing the offence under section 302 IPC ; for committing the offence under section 120-B IPC, A-2 and A-3 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs 10,000/-each. For the offence committed under section 201 of IPC, A-1 and A-2 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs 5,000/-each with default stipulations. Assailing the impugned judgment, A-2 and A-3 have jointly preferred Criminal Appeal No.396/2019.
3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 14.12.2017 the A-1 had criminally conspired with his mother A-2 and sister A-3 and called the victim over phone asking her to wait after finishing her examination. Accordingly, A-1 went to K. C. Das Commerce College, Guwahati, picked up the victim in his motorcycle and returned to their house located at J. P. Agarwal Road at Bharalumukh. The accused persons then brutally stabbed the victim inside the house and thereafter, burnt her by pouring kerosene thereby committing a gruesome act of murder of the deceased Sweta Agarwal.
4. On 04.12.2017 Sri Jagdish Agarwal i.e. the uncle of deceased Sweta Agarwal lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge of Bharalumukh Police Station reporting that his niece Sweta Agarwal had gone to K.C. Das Commerce College to write her exam at around 8:30 a.m. Her exam was over at around 12:30 p.m. Although she usually returns home at around 1:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m, yet, on that day Sweta did not come back home till about 2:00 p.m. There was also no response to calls made in her mobile phone. At around 3:30 p.m. the mobile was found switched off. Around 5:50 to 6:00 p.m. he had received a call from No.9401829797 whereby a lady had informed him that his niece was lying dead in a naked and burnt condition. The unknown lady had also given him her address. On reaching the address, the lady took him to her bathroom were he found his niece was lying dead in a naked and burnt condition. At that time, the mother of the accused Gobind was present along with a girl. He suspected that the A-1 had raped his niece and brutally murdered her with the help of his mother (A-2) and sister (A-3). Based on the aforesaid ejahar, BMK P.S. Case No.805/2017 was registered under Sections 302/376/120(B) of the IPC and the matter was entrusted to S.I. Sudip Chaudhury to carry out the investigation. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all the three accused persons.
5. On committal of the matter for trial before the Sessions Court formal charge under Sections 120(B)/
Paramjeet Singh vs. State Uttarakhand reported in (2010) 10 SCC 439
Nar Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in (2015) 1 SCC 496
Reena Hazarika vs. State of Assam reported in AIR 2018 SC 5361
Md. Sahid Khan vs. State of Assam
Paramjeet Singh @Pamma vs. State of Uttarkhand (2010) 10 SCC 439
Point of Law : Duty of the trial court to put the substance of all the incriminating circumstances to the accused by framing specific and separate question on each incriminating evidence brought on r....
Where there is perfunctory examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., matter is capable of being remitted to trial court from the stage at which prosecution was closed.
A witness’s relationship to the deceased does not render their testimony unreliable or 'interested' absent specific motives for bias. Minor investigative flaws or procedural omissions by the police d....
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, states as burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that....
A conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence requires that all links in the evidence chain conclusively point to the accused's guilt without reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must establish charges beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictions in witness testimony and failure to seize crucial evidence can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.