IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR, KARDAK ETE, JJ.
Bijit Saikia @ Ken, S/o. Lt. Ghana Shyam Saikia - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam, Rep. by P.P., Assam - Respondent
Crl.A(J) No. 58 of 2018
Decided On : 03-05-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 164 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302/201/120(B) - Appeal Against conviction - Offence of Murder - Rigorous imprisonment for life - Sentences to run concurrently - Pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried - Accused persons prosecution had examined - Evidences adduced - Whether of mind or any other cause of same kind - A child of tender age can be allowed to testify if he has intellectual capacity to questions and give rational answers thereto - Held, As noted above in case of State of Hon’ble Apex Court held that it is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul cold-blooded and cruel murder should go unpunished - There may also be an element of truth in prosecution story against the accused. Considered as a whole the prosecution story may be true but between may be true and must be true there is inevitably a long distance to travel and whole of this distance must be covered by prosecution by legal reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted - It is also a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that more serious offence stricter degree of proof a higher degree of assurance is required to convict accused - Appeal Allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Kardak Ete, J.
Heard Mr. S.D. Purakayastha, learned Amicus Curiae. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Ms. M. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant Sri. Bijit Saikia @ Ken assailing the judgment and order dated 04.04.2018 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Jorhat in connection with Sessions case no 71(J-J)/2015 corresponding with GR case no. 318/2014 wherein the appellant has been convicted under section 302/201 of IPC, 1860 for committing murder and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another six months under Section 302 of IPC and also rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine of Rs.5,000/-(five thousand) in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another three months under section 201 of IPC. Both the sentences to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution story in brief is that Ejahar dated 02.07.2014 was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge, Mariani Police Station by the informant, Sri. Deben Gogoi alleging that on 01.07.2014, there was a quarrel between the husband and wife in the house of Bijit Saikia @ Ken, a resident of Lahing Village and following that quarrel Bijit Saikia killed his wife by assaulting her repeatedly. Thereafter, the dead body was cremated inside the compound in presence of few persons of Lahing Village. The matter was informed to the informant by one Sri Soni Kachari, a resident of the same village. On receipt of the ejahar by the Officer-in-Charge, Mariani Police Station, FIR was registered as Mariani P.S. Case No. 139/2014 under Section 302/201/120(B) of IPC, 1860. On completion of the investigation, the Police filed a charge-sheet against the accused Bijit Saikia @ Ken and two co-accused Gonaram Baruah and Golap Gogoi under Section 302/201/120(B) of IPC vide charge-sheet No. 174/2014 dated 30.11.2014.
4. Vide order dated 07.05.2015, charge was framed against the accused, Bijit Saikia under Section 302/201 of IPC and separate charges were framed against co-accused Gonaram Baruah and Golap Gogoi under Sections 201/34 of IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons, to which, all of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of investigation, Police on the basis of confidential information to the effect that the accused Bijit Saikia @Ken committed murder of his wife late Dipali Saikia and cremated her dead body, made search of suspects and arrested Bijit Saikia @ Ken and as per disclosure statement of accused Bijit Saikia @Ken the decomposed dead body of the deceased was recovered. Police also seized one meat dao vide seizure-list (Exhibit-6) and some clothes, i.e., one yellow colored sporting ganji and one light white coloured long pant vide seizure-list (Exhibit-7) on 03.07.2014 as reflected from the aforesaid Seizure-lists.
6. During the investigation, (as per records) three witnesses namely, Sri. Ratul Saikia, Sri. Babul Saikia and Sri. Ritu Saikia were examined under section 164 CrPC, 1973. Sri. Ratul Saikia and Sri. Ritu Saikia are the sons of the accused Sri. Bijit Saikia @Ken and the deceased Dipali Saikia.
7. To bring home the charges framed against the accused persons, the prosecution had examined as many as 15 witnesses including the informant, two sons of the accused Bijit Saikia @ Ken and the deceased Dipali Saikia, Executive Magistrate, Forensic Expert and Investigating Officer.
8. On completion of the prosecution evidences, statements of all the accused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC. All the accused persons stated that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case thereby defence plea is of total denial. No evidence/witness was adduced by the accused in their defence.
9. Upon consideration of the entire evidences adduced on record, the learned Trial court c
Mustkeem alias Sirajuddin vs. State of Rajasthan
Niranjan Panja vs. State of West Bengal
Ram Prasad vs. State of Maharashtra
V.K. Mishra & Anr. vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohd. Iqram and Anr.
Nivruti Pandurang Kokate vs. State of Maharastra
Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal
Satye Singh & Anr. vs. State of Uttarakhand
Rajiv Phukan vs. State of Assam
Satye Singh & Anr. vs. State of Uttarakhand
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra
Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna Kartalla Vs. State of Maharashtra
State of Bihar and Ors. v. Radha Krishna Singh & Ors.
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence that excludes every reasonable hypothesis except guilt; suspicion alone is insufficient for conviction.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a continuous chain linking the accused to the crime, and mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
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....
It is a primary principle that accused “must be” and not merely “may be” guilty before a Court can convict him.
Circumstantial evidence must be conclusive and all links in the chain must be established beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so warrants acquittal.
In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to prove guilt unless it excludes every possible hypothesis e....
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.