Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
N.Kotiswar Singh, Arun Dev Choudhury, JJ.
Gugul Miyan - Appellant
Versus
State of Assam - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 117(J) of 2016
Decided On : 25-07-2022
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Sec. 302/201 of IPC - [LAST SEEN THEORY] - [302, 201] - The court convicted the appellant based on circumstantial evidence, primarily the last seen theory. The appellant and another accused were charged with causing the death of the victim and dropping the dead body in the river. The court found that the deceased was forcibly taken away by the appellant and the other accused, ruling out suicide due to the deceased's tied limbs and gagged mouth. The court held that the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstances, ruling out the hypothesis of the appellant's innocence. However, the High Court found that the circumstantial evidence did not conclusively establish the appellant's guilt, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Sec. 302/201 of IPC based on circumstantial evidence, primarily the last seen theory. The deceased was forcibly taken away by the appellant and another accused, and later found dead in a river. The appellant absconded and subsequently surrendered. The court found that the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstances, ruling out the hypothesis of the appellant's innocence. However, the High Court found that the circumstantial evidence did not conclusively establish the appellant's guilt, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court convicted the appellant based on circumstantial evidence, primarily the last seen theory. The High Court found that the circumstantial evidence did not conclusively establish the appellant's guilt, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, conclusively established the appellant's guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, did not conclusively establish the appellant's guilt, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
Final Decision: The High Court acquitted the appellant of all charges due to the lack of conclusive evidence establishing the appellant's guilt.
JUDGMENT :
N.KOSTISWAR SINGH, J.
Heard Ms. R.D. Mazumdar, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior counsel as well as Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State/respondent No.1.
2. This is an appeal from jail.
3. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dtd. 1/10/2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat in Sessions Case No.73/2010 by which the appellant was convicted under Sec. 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000.00 (Rupees one thousand) only, and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for another one month. Further, the appellant was convicted under Sec. 201 and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 5(five) years and also to pay fine of Rs.500.00 (Rupees five hundred) only, and in default, simple imprisonment for another 15 (fifteen) days.
4. The appellant has been convicted based on circumstantial evidences and primarily on the basis of last seen theory .
5. While the Trial Court convicted the appellant as above, the other accused who was charged along with the appellant had absconded during the trial and as such, the appeal has been preferred by the present appellant only against his conviction.
6. The facts in brief leading to the prosecution and conviction of the appellant are that, an FIR was lodged on 12/2/2007 to the effect that at around 9:00 P.M. of 6/2/2007, the appellant along with another accused Hanu Kerketa had come to the house of the deceased, Chandrasai Garh and forcibly took him away allegedly for treatment of the ailing son of the appellant by means of sorcery. Later on, the dead body of the deceased Chandrasai Garh was found on 11/2/2007 in the waters of Doyang River.
7. Based on the aforesaid FIR, Merapani P.S. Case No.15/07 under Sec. 302/201 IPC was registered. Consequent thereupon, necessary investigation was carried out, and on completion of the investigation, charges were framed against the appellant as well as the other accused Hanu Kerketa.
8. Accordingly, the appellant and the accused Hanu Kerketa were charged before the Sessions Court on the following two grounds, Firstly, on the 6th day of February, 2007 at about 9 pm at No.1 Nahartoligaon under Merapani Police Station of Golaghat district, they caused death of one Chandra Sai Paule intentionally, in furtherance of their common intention and thereby committed offence under Sec. 302/34 IPC. Secondly , on the same day, time and same place as stated in the foregoing charge, they dropped the dead body of the aforesaid Chandra Sai Paule in the water of Doyang River after causing death with the intention of screening themselves from legal punishment, in furtherance of their common intention and thereby committed offence under Sec. 201/34 IPC.
9. The prosecution examined as many as 8(eight) witnesses.
10. The Trial Court after considering the evidences adduced before trial and after considering the plea of innocence of the appellant, convicted the appellant under Sec. 302/201 IPC as mentioned above. Though both the appellant as well as the other accused Hanu Kerketa absconded during the trial, the appellant was subsequently apprehended and put on trial. Thus, the conviction order was passed against only the present appellant and the other accused has been remaining absconded till now as per records.
11. We will now discuss the evidences on record. PW1, Dr. Mukul Chandra Gogoi, is the Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased who found the conditions of the dead body as follows,
II- Cranum and Spinal Canal
1. Scalp, skull, vertebrae : Hematoma scalp over
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, must conclusively establish the guilt of the accused in order to secure a conviction.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain linking the accused to the crime; absence of motive and direct evidence renders conviction unsafe.
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.
Point of Law : Trial Court did not pass any order for payment of compensation to victim or his dependents as contemplated under Section 357A of Cr.P.C.
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the last seen theory and the accused's failure to explain the circumstances of the death.
Conviction for murder can be sustained based on circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory, particularly when the accused fails to explain crucial circumstances.
The absence of corroborative evidence from reliable witnesses and the failure of the prosecution to establish a motive led to the overturning of the conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
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
