Back
2023 Supreme(Gau) 544
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR, MALASRI NANDI, JJ.
Sri Bhadreswar Padi, S/o. Late Dimbeswar Padi – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam, Represented By PP. And Anr. – Respondents
Crl. A. No.240 Of 2018
Decided On : 11-05-2023
For the Petitioner: Mr. B. Buragohain.
For the Respondents: Ms. B. Bhuyan.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 201, 498(A), 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 – Murder offence - Harassment of woman to meet unlawful demand- Appeal against conviction - Appeal preferred by accused/appellant from jail challenging judgment and order convicting accused – Held, It is true that circumstances proved on basis of evidence on record give rise to a suspicion against appellant but suspicion howsoever strong is not enough to justify conviction of appellant for murder - Trial court has, in Court opinion, proceeded more on basis that appellant may have murdered child of informant - Trial court overlooked fact that there is a long distance between "may have" and "must have" which distance must be traversed by prosecution by producing cogent and reliable evidence - No such evidence is unfortunately forthcoming in instant case – Court find that on basis of evidence led by prosecution, it can be said that prosecution has not been able to prove place of occurrence, manner of occurrence and participation of accused/appellant in crime and therefore, Court hold that prosecution has failed to prove charge under Section 302/201 IPC against appellant beyond all reasonable doubt - Accused/appellant is acquitted on benefit of doubt – Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Malasri Nandi, J.)
1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the accused-appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondents.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the accused/appellant from jail challenging the judgment and order dated 17.07.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji in Sessions Case No. 46(DH)/2016 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 302/201 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default rigorous imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under Section 201 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. To begin with the prosecution case, it has been revealed from the FIR that the informant Sangita Padi lodged an FIR on 04.09.2012 stating inter alia that she got married to the accused/appellant in the year 2010. After their marriage, they lived together as husband and wife and out of their wedlock, one male child was born. It is also alleged that since after three months of their marriage, the accused/appellant started to torture her both mentally as well as physically. It is also alleged that after the birth of the child, the accused/appellant tried to sell the child to some person but her mother resisted him from doing so and a chaotic situation arose and the nurses and other medical staff came to know about it and they prevented him from selling the child. After discharged from the hospital, the informant came back home along her child but the accused/appellant assaulted the informant and her child and also killed her child by strangulating him on 30.06.2012. The accused/appellant also threatened her that if she disclosed the fact to anybody, she would be killed.
4. On receipt of the complaint, a case was registered vide Gogamukh P.S. Case No. 141/2012 under Sections 498(A)/302/506 IPC and the investigation was started. During investigation, the investigating officer visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of the witnesses and seized some articles on being shown by the informant. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused/appellant under Section 498(A)/302/506 IPC before the court of learned Addl. CJM, Dhemaji. As the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed accordingly.
5. During trial, on appearance of the accused/appellant before the Court of Sessions, charge was framed under Sections 302/201 IPC, which was read over and explained to the accused/appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.
6. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined twelve witnesses. On the other hand, the defence did not adduce any evidence. After completion of trial, the statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the fact by stating that he had not killed his child. It is also stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that he has been falsely implicated in this case. After hearing the argument advanced by the learned counsel for both sides, the learned Sessions Judge had convicted the accused/appellant as aforesaid.
7. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji dated 17.07.2017, the accused/appellant has preferred this appeal.
8. Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the buried dead body of the child had not been found. It is also submitted that there was no proof that the child of the informant and the appellant has actually died. He further submits that there was no medical evidence on the death. It is further submitted that the other witnesses examined b
