IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR, KARDAK ETE, JJ.
Miya Hussain, S/o Late Abdul Kadir – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam – Respondent
Crl.A(J) 21 of 2022
Decided on : 05-08-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 201, 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313, 161 - Murder offence – Appeal against conviction - Appeal has been preferred assailing judgment and order passed by Court whereby appellant have been convicted for committing murder – Prosecution has failed to establish guilt of appellant. Para 64.
Finding of the Court: There is no evidence against appellant which point towards guilt of appellant except mentioning of his name in chargesheet – Court is of opinion that prosecution has failed to establish guilt of appellant - In fact it is a case of conviction based on no evidence - Conviction and sentence of appellant by judgment passed by the Sessions Judge cannot be maintained and accordingly is hereby set aside and quashed.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Kardak Ete, J
Heard Mr. R. J. Das, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.
2. This appeal from Jail has been preferred by Miya Hussain assailing the judgment and order dated 13.05.2019 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Nagaon in Sessions case no. 387(N) of 2012 whereby the appellant namely Miya Hussain alongwith 5 (five) others yaccused namely: Md. Abdul Hekim, Md. Abdul Rahim, Md. Azizul Hoque @Aijul Hoque, Habibur Rahman and Sahed Ali have been convicted under Section 302/201/34 IPC, 1860 for committing the murder of Azibur Rahman and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-each and in default, rigorous imprisonment for another six months. The accused persons have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay fine of Rs 1000/-each, in default, rigorous imprisonment for another one month under section 201/34 IPC, 1860.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.04.2008, the informant Mustt Rumena Khatoon lodged an FIR before the Dhing P.S alleging that there arose some dispute and the deceased, Azibur Rahman was in bad terms with the accused persons namely Md. Fakaruddin, Md. Abdul Hekim, Md. Abdul Karim, Md. Abdul Rahim, Md. Habibur Rahman, Md. Azizul Hoque @Aijul Hoque, Miya Hussain and Sahed Ali with regard to certain issues for some time. After such dispute, the accused persons have been looking for an opportunity to cause harm to him. It is further alleged that on 13.04.2008, at around 7:00 pm, the above accused persons came to their house in group and called her husband namely, Azibur Rahman on the pretext of discussing certain important matters. Then when her husband took out his bicycle, she held a lamp to show him the road to outside and she saw the accused persons in the gleam of the lamp, but for the whole night her husband did not come back. As such, in the morning, she intimated the matter to other people and the people caught and interrogated Md. Habibur and Azizul Hoque who in turn admitted that they had killed her husband and buried him. Thereafter, the accused persons Md. Habibur and Azizul Hoque were handed over to the Police.
4. On receipt of FIR, the case was registered being Dhing P.S. Case no 61/2008 under section 302/201/34 IPC, 1860. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed a charge-sheet on 31.01.2010 against the accused persons namely Md. Fakaruddin, Md. Abdul Hekim, Md. Abdul Karim, Md. Abdul Rahim, Md. Habibur Rahman, Md. Azizul Hoque, Miya Hussain and Sahed Ali while the accused persons Md. Fakaruddin and Sahed Ali were shown as absconder. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagaon committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Nagaon on 16.10.2012.
5. The accused Sahed Ali subsequently appeared during the trial while the accused Md. Fakaruddin remained absconder. Based on the charge-sheet, charges were framed against the accused persons Md. Abdul Hekim, Md. Abdul Karim, Md. Abdul Rahim, Md. Habibur Rahman, Md. Azizul Hoque, Miya Hussain and Sahed Ali and the same was read over and explained to the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The matter went up for trial. It is noted that during the proceedings of the trial, the accused Abdul Karim expired, as such, the case against him got abetted recorded vide order dated 08.07.2015.
6. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined in all 9 (nine) witnesses. The statements of the accused persons under section 313 Cr.PC were also recorded. The defence plea is total denial, no evidence has been adduced by the accused persons. Upon consideration of the evidence adduced on records, the learned Trial Court concluded that considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidences and materials available on record, the accused persons in furtherance to common intention have caused
Charansingh vs State of Maharashra and Ors reported in (2021) 5 SCC 469
Aloke Nath Dutta v. State of W.B. [(2007) 12 SCC 230]
Anwar Ali and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh: (2020) 10 SCC 166
Antar Singh vs State of Rajasthan reported in (2004) 10 SCC 657
Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1995 Supp4 SCC 259
Budhsen & Anr. v. State of U.P. [(1970) 2 SCC 128]
Dayal Singh and Ors vs State of Uttaranchal reported in (2012) 8 SCC 263
Kavita v. State of T.N. [(1998) 6 SCC 108]
Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1
Ningappa Yallappa Hosamani & Ors vs State of Karnataka & Ors reported in (2009) 14 SCC 582
Pakkirisamy v. State of T.N. [(1997) 8 SCC 158]
Prem Singh vs State (Nct of Delhi) reported in (2023) 3 SCC 372
Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat [(2009) 5 SCC 740]
Ravishwar Manjhi & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand
State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram [(2003) 8 SCC 180]
State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha & Ors [(1992) 3 SCC 700]
State of Maharashtra vs. Suresh (2000 (1) SCC 471)
Simon and Ors vs State of Karnataka reported in (2004) 2 SCC 694
Subed Ali And Ors vs State of Assam reported in (2020) 10 SCC 517
State of Andhra Pradesh v. V.V. Panduranga Rao (2009) 15 SCC 211
Surender Chauhan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan [(2010) 10 SCC 604]
Suresh And Another vs State of U.P reported in (2001) 3 SCC 673
Sahadevan & Anr vs State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2012) 6 SCC 403
Yanab Sheikh vs State of West Bengal reported in (2013) 6 SCC 428
Conviction is on basis of circumstantial evidence, last seen theory and extra-judicial confession by accused persons.
Value of evidence as to confession depends on reliability of witness who gives evidence.
Provisions of Section 106 of Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within knowledge of a person, burden of proving that fact is upon him.
It is a settled legal proposition that conviction of a person accused of committing an offence, is generally based solely on evidence that is either oral or documentary, but in exceptional circumstan....
Point of Law : Offence of Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Prosecution is required not only to prove circumstances but also to complete chain of circumstances on basis of which guilt of accused can....
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence that leads to the only conclusion of guilt, leaving no room for reasonable....
When other evidence are available, non-examination of witness is inconsequential.
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.