IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR, KARDAK ETE, JJ.
Sahed Ali S/O Late Abdul Jabbar And Anr – Appellants
Versus
The State Of Assam – Respondent
Crl.A(J) 22 of 2022
Decided on : 05-08-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 201, 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - section 313, 161 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Murder offence – Appeal against conviction - Appeal has been preferred assailing the judgment and order whereby the appellants have been convicted for committing the murder – Prosecution has been able to establish guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Para 92.
Finding of the Court: Evidences of these witnesses which resulted in death of deceased are credible, reliable and trustworthy and conviction of appellant by Court can be based on testimony of PW-2 which is corroborated by other evidences which warrants no interference – Court have, therefore, no incertitude in holding that evidence led by prosecution establishes charges brought against appellants beyond reasonable doubt - Learned Trial court had rightly convicted them - Conviction and sentence of appellants vide judgment and order passed by Sessions Judge is upheld.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Kardak Ete, J
Heard Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.
2. This appeal from Jail has been preferred by Sahed Ali and Azizul Hoque @ Aijul Hoque 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 appellants namely Sahed Ali and Azizul Hoque @ Aijul Hoque along with 4 (four) other accused namely Md. Abdul Hekim, Md. Abdul Rahim, Miya Hussain and Habibur Rahman 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 vied 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 com
Joyram Ingty v. State of Assam reported in 2006 (4) GauLT 33
Aloke Nath Dutta v. State of W.B. [(2007) 12 SCC 230]
Bodhraj alias Bodha and Ors v State of Jammu and Kashmir reported in (2002) 8 SCC 45
Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1995 Supp4 SCC 259
Charansingh vs State of Maharashra and Ors r e p or t e d in (2021) 5 SCC 469
Gamparai Hrudayaraju vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Kavita v. State of T.N. [(1998) 6 SCC 108]
Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1
Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2011) 11 SCC 724
Pakkirisamy v. State of T.N. [(1997) 8 SCC 158]
Ravishwar Manjhi & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand
State of Maharashtra vs. Suresh(2000 (1) SCC 471)
State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha & Ors [(1992) 3 SCC 700]
State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhup Singh (1997) 10 SCC 675
State of Andhra Pradesh v. V.V. Panduranga Rao (2009) 15 SCC 211
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
Yanab Sheikh vs State of West Bengal reported in (2013) 6 SCC 428
Prem Singh vs State (Nct of Delhi) reported in (2023) 3 SCC 372
Ningappa Yallappa Hosamani & Ors vs State of Karnataka & Ors reported in (2009) 14 SCC 582
Antar Singh vs State of Rajasthan r e p or t e d in (2004) 10 SCC 657
Simon and Ors vs State of Karnataka r e p or t e d in (2004) 2 SCC 694
Dayal Singh and Ors vs State of Uttaranchal r e p or t e d in (2012) 8 SCC 263
Subed Ali And Ors vs State of Assam r e p o r t e d in (2020) 10 SCC 517
Surender Chauhan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
State of Rajasthan v.Raja Ram[(2003) 8 SCC 180]
Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan[(2010) 10 SCC 604]
Suresh And Another vs State of U.P r e p o r t e d in (2001) 3 SCC 673
Sahadevan & Anr vs State of Tamil Nadu r e p o r t e d in (2012) 6 SCC 403
Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat[(2009) 5 SCC 740]
Nizam & Anr v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2016) 1 SCC 550
Sattatiya @Satish Rajanna Kartata Vs. State of Maharashtra
R. Shaji vs. State of Kerala reported in (2013) 14 SCC 266
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh
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....
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.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to establish guilt, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies can lead to acquittal.
Circumstantial evidence must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, with clear, cogent connections to establish guilt; the accused's release is warranted when gaps exist in prosecution evidence.
In murder cases based on circumstantial evidence, each link must be established beyond reasonable doubt, with all evidence consistently pointing to the guilt of the accused.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence for conviction; extrajudicial confessions lack evidentiary value if not proven voluntary.
Circumstantial evidence requires complete unbroken chain conclusively proving guilt and excluding innocence hypothesis; failure of key links like last seen, extra-judicial confession, motive, recover....
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.