Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR, KARDAK ETE, JJ.
Indra Bahadur Limbu – Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam – Respondent
Crl. Appeal (J) No. 82 of 2020
Decided On : 20-07-2023
Circumstantial Evidence - Murder - IPC 302 - Last Seen Theory - [SECTION 302, IPC, 1860] - The court examined the testimonies of witnesses, the post-mortem report, and the circumstances surrounding the case. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and the Last Seen Together Theory to convict the appellant for murder. However, the court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted discrepancies in witness testimonies, lack of conclusive evidence connecting the accused to the crime, and insufficient proof of the Last Seen Together Theory. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant, setting aside the conviction and life imprisonment sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the appellant committed murder, based on circumstantial evidence and the Last Seen Together Theory. The appellant's guilt was primarily inferred from the relationship between the accused and the deceased, hearsay evidence, and the circumstances of the crime. The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence and conclusive proof of the Last Seen Together Theory.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case was based solely on circumstantial evidence and the Last Seen Together Theory. However, the testimonies of witnesses, including hearsay evidence, and the post-mortem report did not conclusively establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted discrepancies in witness testimonies, lack of conclusive evidence connecting the accused to the crime, and insufficient proof of the Last Seen Together Theory. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant, setting aside the conviction and life imprisonment sentence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the reliability of witness testimonies, and the application of the Last Seen Together Theory. The court scrutinized the testimonies of witnesses, the post-mortem report, and the circumstances surrounding the case to determine the guilt of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be fully established and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The court reiterated that doubt cannot replace proof in criminal jurisprudence and that suspicion, however great, is no substitute for proof. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellant, setting aside the conviction and life imprisonment sentence. The court found that the prosecution's case was based solely on circumstantial evidence and the Last Seen Together Theory, but the evidence did not conclusively establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
JUDGMENT :
KARDAK ETE, J.
1. We have heard Mr. A. Kalita, learned Amicus Curiae, and also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.
2. This appeal from Jail has been preferred by the appellant/convict against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC, Kokrajhar) in Sessions Case No. 29/2019 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302, IPC, 1860 for committing murder and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand), in default of payment of fine, to suffer further imprisonment for one year.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.03.2019, one Jitendra Singh, ASI lodged an Ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge, Serfanguri Police Station, alleging that on 19.12.2018, the village Headman of Khalashi Village informed him over mobile phone that a 50 years old woman of his village, namely, Nepti Limbu, wife of Indra Bahadur Limbu committed suicide by hanging herself on a Dambarutree in the backside of her house. On the basis of Patgaon Outpost GD Entry No. 275 dated 19.12.2018, he visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses nearby and seized the rope with which she hanged herself to death by preparing a Seizure List in the presence of witnesses, and got the inquest done by the Judicial Magistrate, Kokrajhar. Thereafter, the dead body was sent under the custody of UBC 157, Amrit Lal Brahma, and got the Post Mortem examined by the Superintendent of RNB Civil Hospital, Kokrajhar. Thereafter, on the basis of information given by the Village Headman of Khalashi Village, UD Case being No. 06/2018 dated 19.12.2018 was registered in Serfanguri Police Station. Accordingly, the case was investigated. On 12.03.2019, in the evening, he received the Post Mortem Examination Report from RNB Civil Hospital, Kokrajar by post and found the Doctor mention in his Report that the cause of death is due to severe haemorrhage and it is antemortem in nature. Accordingly, he informed that this is a case of murder and it cannot be a case of suicide. And hence, the Ejahar was lodged. Pursuant thereto, a case was registered as Serfanguri PS Case No. 13/2019 under Section 302, IPC, 1860. Thereafter, the appellant was arrested and investigation was launched.
4. On completion of the investigation, Charge sheet was filed against the convict/appellant for commission of offence under Section 302, IPC, 1860 vide dated 29.04.2019.
5. The case was committed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Kokrajhar to the Court of Sessions, Kokrajhar on 16.05.2019. Charge was framed on 20.06.2019 against the appellant to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 8 (eight) witnesses. After completion of the prosecution witnesses, the appellant was examined on 04.12.2019, under Section 313 of the CrPC, 1973. Defence plea is of total denial. No evidence/witness was adduced by the accused in his defence.
7. On conclusion of the trial, after considering all the testimonies of witnesses as well as the materials on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC, Kokrajhar) has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302, IPC, 1860 and sentenced him to Rigorous Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand), in default, to suffer further imprisonment for one year on the basis of circumstantial evidence and the Last Seen Together Theory.
8. Mr. A. Kalita, learned Amicus Curiaesubmits that the guilt of the accused could not be proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt as there was no eyewitness to the commission of the alleged murder by the accused. The whole prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence/hearsay evidence and nothing more. He submits that none of the PWs are stated to have witnessed the commission of the murder. In fact, PWs-1, 2, 3, 6 and 7, who were neighbours of the deceased had not stated an
In a murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence, multiple corroborative factors, including the last seen theory and absence of alternative explanations, can establish guilt beyond reasonable ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the 'last seen together theory' and the reliance on circumstantial evidence, medical evidence, and recovery evidence to establis....
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, all links in the evidence chain must be established beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for complete and conclusive circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
It is well settled that in a case of circumstantial evidence, circumstances should be such so as to lead to only one irresistible conclusion, which is incompatible with innocence of accused.
The court upheld the conviction under IPC Section 302, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt without the accused providing an adeq....
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances and prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
