IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, JJ.
Sri Doman Mardi, S/o-Sri Chapal Mardi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam - Respondent
Crl.A(J) No. 62 of 2017
Decided on : 20-06-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section, 302, 34, 376 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 313, 161, 164 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Murder offence – Offence of Rape – Appeal against conviction - Informant escape with her son, however, accused persons raped her mother and thereafter killed her and left her dead body there – Judicial confession made by appellant before public that he and co-accused had killed mother of informant appears to be relevant - Para 35.
Finding of the Court: Testimonies of PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW-7, and PW-11, as regards extra judicial confession made by appellant before public that he and co-accused had killed mother of informant appears to be relevant and under facts and circumstances of present case it inspires confidence and may be regarded as a corroborative evidence as regards allegation against appellant under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code - appellant along with co accused intentionally caused death of “Y” i.e., mother of first informant – Court is of opinion that conviction of appellant under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code by learned trial court needs no interference.
Result: Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been registered on receipt of an appeal petition from the appellant, namely, Doman Mardi, who has been detained in District Jail, Udalguri, through the Superintendent District Jail, Udalguri. In this appeal, the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri in Sessions Case No. 116(U)/2014, on 30.06.2017, has been impugned. By the said judgment, the present appellant along with one Sona Besra @ Mandal were convicted under Section, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 376/34 of Indian Penal Code and also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The facts relevant for adjudication for this jail appeal, in brief, are as follows:-
(ii) On receipt of the said FIR, the Mazbat P.S Case No. 47/13 under Sections 376/302/34 of IPC was registered and investigation was initiated. On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid against the present appellant, namely, Doman Mardi and one Sona Besra @ Mandal under Sections 376/302/34 of IPC. The present appellant as well as Sri Sona Besra @ Mandal faced the trial remaining in custody. During trial, the prosecution side examined twenty prosecution witnesses and sixteen documents were exhibited as Ext. 1 to Ext. 16. The present appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. during which he denied his involvement in the alleged offences and pleaded his innocence. However, by the judgment which is impugned in this appeal, learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri convicted and sentenced the present appellant as well as co-accused, namely, Sona Besra @ Mandal in the manner as described in paragraph No. 2 herein above.
(iii) It is pertinent to mention herein that the co-accused, namely, Sona Besra @ Mandal had also filed one jail appeal which was registered as Criminal Appeal (Jail) No. 63/2017 wherein it was found that the accused Sona Besra was minor at the time of commission of the alleged offence hence, his conviction under Sections 376/302 of IPC was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board through the learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri for doing needful in accordance with law.
3. We have heard Mr. D. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Ms. K. Phukan, learned counsel appearing for the informant. Before considering the submissions of learned counsel for both sides, let us go through the relevant evidence on record.
4. PW-1, “X” who is the first informant of this case, has deposed that the appellant is known to her and the incident took place, at about 6 to 7 p.m., when she was ret
The court ruled that evidence must consistently establish guilt, and circumstantial evidence alone cannot justify a death sentence without clear and compelling justification for extreme culpability.
The main legal point established is the requirement for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and the need for a complete chain....
Suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal cases.
(1) Non-examination of Investigating Officer in all cases does not render prosecution case vulnerable.(2) There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on sole testimony of a single witness pro....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of direct evidence to prove the awareness of the victim's caste for conviction under section 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Caste/Schedu....
(1) Extra-judicial confession – Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence – If extra-judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appea....
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death of the deceased in order to secure a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Pa....
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.