Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SUMAN SHYAM, ROBIN PHUKAN, JJ.
Aswini Kalita S/o Late Golak – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
Crl. Appeal Nos. 89, 91, 96 of 2014
Decided On : 26-04-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 201, 202, 114 - Criminal Procedural Code, 1973 - Section 164, 223(d), 313 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27, 30 - Criminal Appeal - Offence of Murder - Abettor present when offence is committed - Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence - prosecution case, as unfolded from materials available on record, is to effect an abandoned cartoon was seen lying under over bridge - Having seen cartoon, suspecting bomb in it, had informed Police Station, where-after, Police arrived at spot, opened cartoon and found a female dead body inside cartoon which was wrapped in a hold all - Whether, conviction of appellants in Criminal Appeal and Criminal Appeal, under Section 201/202 of IPC is sustainable in eye of law - Whether, prosecution has succeeded in establishing charge brought against accused - Whether, prosecution has succeeded in establishing charge brought against these accused persons under Section 201 of IPC - Whether prosecution had succeeded in establishing charges brought against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
All these accused persons have been accused of removing dead body to screen offender - There is, however, nothing on record to show that accused persons, had any prior acquaintance with accused - Rather, it appears that their involvement in matter was purely under instruction of hotel owner - It also appears that all of these accused persons were either employees in hotel or were under direct control of hotel owner - As such, although it is possible that Hotel owner had prior acquaintance with accused, yet, it cannot be concluded from evidence on record that dead body was removed from hotel only to screen accused i.e. real offender - Rather it appears from materials on record that sole purpose behind removing dead body from hotel was to protect reputation of hotel and also to prevent police from reaching hotel and creating more trouble for hotel owner - In view of above, court are of opinion that, in so far as accused are concerned, ingredients of section 201 IPC have not been fulfilled in this case - In other words, Court are of opinion that prosecution has failed to establish charge brought against these accused persons under section 201 IPC beyond reasonable doubt Court are of unhesitant opinion that conviction of accused under Section 201 of IPC is unsustainable in eye of law due to lack of evidence against them - As such, giving them benefit of doubt, these accused persons stand acquitted in respect of charge framed against them under Section 201 of IPC - However, their conviction and sentence awarded by learned trial Court for committing offence under Section 202 of IPC stand affirmed.
Result: Criminal Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SUMAN SHYAM, J.
1. Heard Mr. K. Agarwal, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B.K. Singh and Ms. P. Neog, learned counsel appearing for the sole appellant in Crl. App. No. 96/2014; Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants in Crl. App. No. 91/2014 and Mr. Z. Kamar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. Talukdar and Mr. P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants in Crl. App. No. 89/2014. Ms. S. Jahan, learned APP, Assam, has appeared on behalf of the State of Assam.
2. These 3 (three) appeals are directed against the common judgement dated 15.02.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, in Sessions Case No. 40(K)/2004, whereby, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 96/2014, i.e. accused Aswini Kalita was convicted under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence committed under Section 302 of the IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for committing the offence under Section 201 of the IPC with default stipulations. By the impugned judgment, the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 89/2014, viz. (1) Md. Washim Rafique, (2) Sri. Balin Chandra Deka and (3) Sri. Tilak Boro as well as the two appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 91/2014 i.e. Dr. Kismat Ali and Sri. Sankar Biswakarma, were convicted under Section 201/202 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for committing the offence under Section 201 of the IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each with default stipulation, for committing the offence under Section 202 of the IPC. The sentences awarded by the learned Sessions Court were to run concurrently in case of all the accused persons.
3. The prosecution case, as unfolded from the materials available on record, is to effect that on 22.08.2012, at about 9 a.m. an abandoned cartoon was seen lying under the over bridge at Hedayatpur, on the eastern side of the Nehru Stadium at Guwahati. Having seen the cartoon, suspecting bomb in it, Sri. Arun Chandra Kalita had informed the Latasil Police Station, where-after, the Police arrived at the spot, opened the cartoon and found a female dead body inside the cartoon which was wrapped in a holdall. Accordingly, the Officer-in- Charge of the Latasil Police Station Sri. Tileswar Saikia had lodged an ejahar based on which, UD Case No. 9/2002 was registered in the Latasil Police Station on 22.08.2002 and thereafter, investigation had commenced.
4. Inquest was held and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. During the course of investigation, the dead body was identified as that of Preeti Roy Bharali. Having learnt about the identity of the deceased Latasil Police Station Case No. 103/2002 was registered under Section 302/201 of the IPC. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against accused Aswini Kalita under Section 302/201 of the IPC for committing the murder of deceased Preeti Roy Bharali and also for destroying the evidence. Charge sheet was also submitted against accused persons Md. Washim Raifque, Sri. Balin Chandra Deka, Sri. Tilok Boro, Dr. Kismat Ali and Sri. Sankar Biswakarma under Section 114/201/202 of the IPC and against co-accused Smt. Lakhi Das under Section 201 of the IPC. After committing the case for trial by the Sessions Court, charges, as aforesaid, were framed against all the accused persons .The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons. However, since they had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the matter went up for trial. All the accused persons were subjected to joint trial.
5. There is no eye witness in this case a
SupremeToday
The court upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC, emphasizing that the absence of premeditation and the nature of the incident fell within Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that confessional statements made to a police officer are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and no part of it is admissible under ....
Acquittal of appellants is affirmed due to insufficient circumstantial evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting prosecutorial burden of proof in criminal cases.
Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which states as Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence.
The confessional statement of an accused must be recorded in accordance with law and must be voluntary, true, and trustworthy. A confessional statement cannot be treated as substantive evidence again....
In criminal law, accomplice testimonies must be corroborated by independent evidence for conviction; mere witness hostility does not invalidate supportive testimony.
Confessions made voluntarily and without pressure under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. are admissible as evidence.
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
