Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR, MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, JJ.
Suman Biswas @ Sumanta Biswas, S/o. Shri Santosh Biswas - Appellant
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh, Rep. by P.P. and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 60 Of 2020
Decided On : 11-08-2023
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374, 164 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 – Murder offence – Appeal against conviction - Criminal Appeal has been filed by appellant against Judgment and Order convicting appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code – Prosecution side has failed to adduce any forensic or any other evidence which connects forensic materials collected from place of occurrence. Para 44.
Finding of the Court: Prosecution case is based wholly on confessional statement made by appellant and on circumstantial evidence as there is no eye-witness to incident - Prosecution side has also failed to adduce any forensic or any other evidence which connects forensic materials collected place of occurrence with appellant to show that he was present at place of alleged offence – Court do agree that mere defective investigation may not, in itself, be a ground to absolve appellant, however, prosecution side, in a criminal trial, based on circumstantial evidence, has to fully establish circumstances on which it relies - Appellant is entitled to get benefit of doubt – Court is of considered opinion that learned Trial Court erred in arriving at a finding of guilt on basis of tainted confessional statement of appellant and on circumstances which were not fully establish by prosecution side in trial – Court give benefit of doubt to appellant and set aside impugned judgment of conviction against appellant.
Result: Ordered accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
(Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.) :
1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant Shri Suman Biswas @ Sumanta Biswas under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Tirap, Changlang and Longding at Khonsa, Arunachal Pradesh in Khonsa Sessions Case No. 44/2019 convicting the present appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for 2(two) months.
2. We have heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury, learned Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh.
3. The facts relevant for adjudication of the present appeal, in brief, are as follows:-
ii. On receipt of the said FIR, Miao P.S. Case No. 39/2016 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and one Ms. Tome Modi, S.I. of Police was entrusted with the investigation of the said case. The present appellant was arrested on 24.12.2016 at 8:00 P.M and ultimately after completion of the investigation charge-sheet was laid against the present appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
iii. On 31.07.2018, charge under section 302 was framed by learned Sessions Judge, East Sessions Division, Tezu Lohit district Arunachal Pradesh, against the present appellant and when the said charge was read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The present appellant faced the trial remaining in custody
iv. During trial the prosecution side examined 8(eight) prosecution witnesses and exhibited 19(nineteen) documentary evidence and 1(one) material exhibit which were marked as Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-19 as well as material Exhibit-1(one) respectively.
4. Before we consider the submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides, let us go through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which is available on record.
5.1 PW-1 Shri Limkon Mossang, who is also the first informant in this case has deposed that on 20.01.2016 he got information that his younger brother namely, Manthai Mossang has not returned back from his duty and at around 9:00 P.M., PW-1 was called by his sister, Ms. Gantam Mossang. He has further deposed that on 21.06.2016 PW-1 along with some of his relatives proceeded to Miao to the residence of his deceased brother where he saw his sister-in-law who informed her that she had not received any information about his brother and she had already informed the matter to police.
5.2 PW-1 has also deposed that he was surprised to notice that his sister-in-law was not having any trauma even though her husband had not returned back. Thereafter, PW-1 proceeded to Miao Police Station, where information was received that the vehicle of his brother was standing near Tibetan Refugee Camp Area and one dead body was inside the vehicle. PW-1 has further deposed that on receipt of the said informatio
Provisions of Section 164 Cr.P.C must be complied with not only in form, but in essence.
Point of Law : Even sub-clause (4) of Section 164 Cr.P.C. clearly indicates that such confession must be recorded in the manner provided under Section 281 Cr.P.C.
Act of appellant would fall under exception 4 to Section 300 of Indian Penal Code as appellant did not intend to kill his wife, however, knowledge that his act of assault by lathi may likely to cause....
Confessional statement recorded without informing to accused as to why he desires to confess and he would not be remanded to police Lock-up even if, he does not confess guilt, cannot be relied on.
A confessional statement made voluntarily and corroborated by other evidence can be relied upon for conviction even if it is retracted during the trial.
The confession made by the accused, along with corroborating evidence, can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially when denial during examination lacks credibility.
Confessions made voluntarily and without pressure under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. are admissible as evidence.
The admissibility of a confession under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the mandatory provision of inflicting a fine under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Confessions made in police custody are inadmissible unless recorded in the presence of independent witnesses and linked to the discovery of evidence, highlighting the necessity for proper procedural ....
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
