The judgment established the principle of presumption of innocence, the requirement for reliable evidence, and the need to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

M. Zothankhuma, J.

Heard Ms. M. Barman, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant in Crl.A.(J) 87/2020 and Mr. N. Deka, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant in Crl.A.(J) 88/2020. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent.

2. The two appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 08.01.2020 and 22.01.2020, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu in Sessions Case 76/2017, by which the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/201/34 IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months under Sections 302/34 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year with a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default simple imprisonment for 1 (one) month under Sections 201/34 IPC, on being found guilty of having committed the murder of the deceased wife by hanging the wife of the appellant in Crl.A.(J) 88/2020 with a saree. Thereafter, the dead body was burnt/cremated by the appellants within two hours.

3. The appellant in Crl.A.(J) 87/2020 is the father of the appellant in Crl.A.(J) 88/2020, while the deceased is the wife of the appellant in Crl.A.(J) 88/2020.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that an FIR dated 21.02.2017 was submitted by the uncle of the deceased, who was Prosecution Witness No. 1 (PW-1). In the FIR, it has been stated that the appellant in Crl.A.(J) 88/2020 had killed his wife Suman Devi on 21.02.2017, by assaulting her and burning the dead body. It is also stated in the FIR that the deceased was the niece of the informant (PW-1). In pursuance to the FIR, Bakalia P.S. Case No. 13/2017 under Sections 302/201 IPC was registered on 21.02.2017 at 3:00 pm.

5. PW-7, who is the Investigating Officer took up the investigation of the case and on finding a prima-facie case against the appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC and Sections 201/34 IPC, he filed a charge-sheet against them. The learned Trial Court thereafter framed charges under Sections 302/34 IPC and Sections 201/34 IPC against the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the trial proceedings held by the learned Trial Court, 7 (seven) prosecution witnesses were examined. After examination of the appellants under Section 313 Cr.PC and after hearing arguments, the learned Trial Court came to a finding that the appellants were guilty of the offence under Sections 302/201/34 IPC. They were accordingly convicted and sentenced under Sections 302/34 IPC and 201/34 IPC.

6. The learned counsels for the appellants submit that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court has to be set aside, inasmuch as, there is no evidence to show any involvement of the appellants in the death of the deceased. They further submit that the finding of guilt against the appellants has been made by the learned Trial Court on the basis of presumptions and not on the basis of the evidence adduced by the PWs, which points to the innocence of the appellants. In this respect, they have relied upon the evidence adduced by PW-6, which proves the innocence of the appellants and who has not been declared to be a hostile witness. They also submit that though PW-2 and PW-4 had given statements under Section 164 Cr.PC against the appellants, the said statements made under Section 164 Cr.PC have not been exhibited during the trial proceedings. Further, PW-2 and PW-4 were also not confronted with the contents of the statements allegedly made by them under Section 164 Cr.PC at the time of recording of their evidence by the learned Trial Court. They also submit that the learned Trial Court has also relied upon the statement made by PW-6 under Section 161 Cr.PC, to come to a finding that the appellants were involved in the death of the deceased, which is not permitted as per Section 25 of the Evidence Act. In support of their submission that the le