IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR, KARDAK ETE, JJ.
Mr. Mukul Deka - Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam – Respondent
Crl.App.317 of 2017
Decided on : 28-07-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the criminal case. (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments against the prosecution's evidence and inconsistencies. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. allegations of uncorroborated hearsay evidence. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. issues with witness reliability and investigative lapses. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. judicial observations on procedural importance. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. state's position and arguments in defense. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. supportive arguments from state's perspective. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 8. findings and reasoning behind the trial court's conviction. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 9. court's analysis and consider laws guiding evidence. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 10. final verdict and acquittal of the appellant. (Para 69 , 70) |
JUDGMENT :
Kardak Ete, J.
Heard Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the appellant. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. Ms. Hira Baruah Barman was appointed as legal aid counsel for the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 02.09.2021. However, the learned legal aid counsel is absent.
2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 07.06.2017 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Barpeta, Assam in Sessions Case No. 296/2012, whereby the convicts, Shri Mukul Deka and Shri Dipankar Deka have been convicted under Section 34 1 /302/34 IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) each, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for another 6 (six) months each for the offence under Section 302 /34, IPC and to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) month each for the offence under Section 34 1 /34 IPC.
3. Be it noted that conviction and sentence of Mr. Dipankar Deka was set aside by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide Judgment and Order dated 06.02.2020 on the ground that the appellant/convict, Mr. Dipankar Deka was juvenile on the date of commission of the offence and the matter has been remanded to the Juvenile Justice Board to proceed in accordance with law.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27.07.2008 at about 8:50 PM, while Kushal Deka was returning from Sarthebari market, near Fire Brigade Office suddenly the informant, Smt. Guna Bala Deka heard a sound “Mok namaribi, mok namaribi’”. Hearing the shouting she rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the two accused, Mukul Deka and Dipankar Deka stabbed Kushal Deka on his neck by a sharp cutting weapon restraining him on the road. Seeing her, both the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence and Kushal Deka died on the spot. Accordingly, wife of the deceased, Smt. Guna Bala Deka lodged an FIR at Sarthebari Police Station on 28.07.2008. An FIR was registered being Sartherbari PS Case No. 111/2008 under Section 34 1 /302/34 IPC, 1860. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted a Charge-sheet against Shri Mukul Deka and Shri Dipankar Deka under Section 34 1 /302/34 IPC on 08.07.2015.
5. The Judicial magistrate First Class, Barpeta committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the accused persons under Section 34 1 /302/34 IPC. The convicts/accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
6. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined in all 9 (nine) witnesses including the Investigating Officer. The convicts/accused persons were examined under Section 313 of CrPC. The defence plea is total denial and the accused persons declined to adduce evidence.
7. The Court of Sessions Judge, Barpeta after examination of the deposition and materials available on record, convicted the accused persons/convicts vide judgment and order dated 07.06.2017 under Section 314/302/34 IPC, 1860 and sentenced them to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) each in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for another
Kipa Sero –Vs- State of Arunachal Pradesh
Nazrul Haque Choudhury Versus State of Assam
Ravishwar Manjhi & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand
Ravi Kumar –Vs-State of Punjab
Rajiv Phukan and Another –Vs- State of Punjab
Reema Hazarika –Vs- State of Assam
Swammy Shraddadananda –Vs-State of Karnataka
State of Uttar Pradesh –Vs-Wasif Haider and Others
State of Andhra Pradesh v. V.V. Panduranga Rao (2009) 15 SCC 211
State of Rajasthan -Vs- Rajendra Singh
State of Madhya Pradesh –Vs- Ghudan
T.T. Anthony Versus State of Kerala and Others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181
Vadivelu Thevar Versus State of Madras reported in AIR 1957 SC 614
Virender Singh Versus State of Haryana
Vijay Kumar –Vs- State of Rajasthan
Yanab Sheikh –Vs-State of West Bengal
Anil Phukan Versus State of Assam
Birendra Gour –Vs-State of Assam
Bircha Kurmi –Vs- State of Assam
Dabu Munda –Vs- State of Tripura
Harjinder Singh Alias Bhola –Vs- State of Punjab
Hate Singh Bhagat Singh vs. State of Madhya Bharat
Indra Dalal –Vs- State of Haryana
Khalil Khan vs. State of M.P. (2003) 11 SCC 19
Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1
Namdeo Versus State of Maharashtra reported in (2007) 14 SCC 150
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; unreliable eyewitness testimony, especially from near relatives, cannot substantiate a conviction.
The court affirmed that all members of an unlawful assembly are liable for actions taken in support of their common objective, showcasing the interplay between direct and circumstantial evidence in e....
Once prosecution has brought home evidence of presence of accused at scene of crime, then onus stood shifted on defence to explain as to what had brought them to place of occurrence.
Conviction under IPC 302/34 upheld on reliable sole eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence and witnesses, despite minor discrepancies and non-examination of investigating officer/docto....
The importance of credible eyewitness testimony, reliable and clinching evidence, and the exclusion of every possible hypothesis except guilt in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Point of Law : The appellant shall be released from jail forthwith, unless wanted in any other case, subject to compliance of the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. to the satisfaction of the trial c....
The conviction upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, despite the absence of independent witnesses, affirming the trial court's judgment.
Conviction on sole eyewitness unreliable due to contradictions in assault manner/place, house layout inconsistency, suspicious family conduct; benefit of doubt where guilt not proved beyond reasonabl....
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.