IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SUMAN SHYAM, MALASRI NANDI, JJ.
Fakhar Uddin S/o Late Suraj Ali – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
Crl.A 78 of 2015
Decided on : 07-06-2022
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/149 - Offence of Murder - Unlawful assembly - Conviction - Witness turning hostile - conviction cannot be based on the evidence of hostile witnesses and their testimony has to be discarded and the infirm witnesses cannot corroborate each other. Hence, accused/appellants deserve to be acquitted on benefit of doubt - Para 46, 47
Finding of the Court:
Even in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross examined and contradicted with the leave of the court, by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether
Result: Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
Malasri Nandi, J.
1. Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the appellants. We have also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. B. Bora, learned counsel representing the State respondent.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the accused/appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment of conviction dated 23/12/2014 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karimganj in Sessions Case no 85/2011 whereby the Learned Trial Court had convicted the appellants u/s 302/149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/-each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for committing the offence u/s 148/149 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that the informant Kalam Hussain lodged an Ejahar on 07/11/2009 before the O/C, Ratabari P.S. stating inter alia that on 04/11/2009 around 7 A.M. the accused persons namely Suruj Ali, Fakharuddin, Jalaluddin, Haris Ali, Joinul Haque and Hussain Ahmed attacked his elder brother Abul Hussain on the road due to previous enmity. They first abused his brother and then Suruj Ali struck a blow with a lathi on the head of his brother causing injuries thereon. When his brother fell on the ground, the rest of the accused persons started to assault him with lathis as a result of which, he sustained injuries on different part of his bodies. Thereafter, his brother became unconscious and the accused persons had left the place. Subsequently his brother was taken to Ratabari P.S. in a critical condition and the police sent him to Chargola Hospital for treatment. As the condition of his brother was critical, his injured brother had been shifted to Silchar Medical College and Hospital wherein he succumbed to his injuries.
4. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered vide Ratabari P.S. case no 105/2009 u/s 147/148/302/149 IPC and the investigation had started. In the course of investigation, the investigating officer visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of the witnesses and prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence vide exhibit 5. During investigation, inquest on the dead body of the deceased was performed and subsequently, post mortem examination was conducted at Silchar Medical College and Hospital. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the aforesaid accused persons, except Haris Ali, u/s 147/148/302/149 IPC before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karimganj. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class took cognizance of the case but as section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the court of sessions, the case was committed accordingly. During trial, all the accused persons aforesaid put their appearance before the court and charge was framed accordingly u/s 148/302/149 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To substantiate the case of prosecution, eleven witnesses including one court witness Noorjahan Bibi, wife of the deceased, were examined and marked six exhibits. On the other hand, the defence did not choose to adduce any evidence. The case of the defence was total denial. After conclusions of trial the trial, court recorded the statements of the appellants u/s 313 Cr.PC and on being asked against the incriminating materials found against the accused persons, they denied the same.
6. Accused Jalaluddin stated in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C that on the date of occurrence, at about 10-11 AM he came to know that deceased fell down from a bridge. He visited the house of the deceased and sent the deceased to hospital. He did not accompany the injured. He was sent to Ratabari and then to SMCH. On the next day, he came to know that Abul Hussain died. He had participated in performing the last rites of Abul Hussain.
Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1976 SC 202
Devraj v. State of Chattisgarh reported in (2016) 13 SCC 366
Point of Law : conviction cannot be based on the evidence of hostile witnesses and their testimony has to be discarded and the infirm witnesses cannot corroborate each other.
It is settled law that evidence of hostile witnesses can also be relied upon by prosecution to extent to which it supports prosecution version of incident.
The prosecution must prove the case for murder beyond reasonable doubt, and lack of supporting evidence can lead to the benefit of doubt for the accused.
Witness testimony must be scrutinized, especially from interested parties; the prosecution's failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt warrants acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of presumption of innocence, the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the careful scrutiny ....
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.