The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the need for an unbroken chain of events to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Headnote:
Criminal Law - Conviction under Sec. 304/201 IPC - Sec. 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted under Sec. 304/201 IPC for killing a laborer and burning the dead body to mislead the law. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence as there were no eyewitnesses to the crime.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution's evidence was grossly inadequate to prove the case. It concluded that there was no circumstantial evidence to connect the appellant with the alleged offense, and the chain of events remained broken. As a result, the appellant's conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was released.
Issues: The issues included the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the admissibility of the appellant's statements, and the failure to prove the discovery memo leading to the recovery of the alleged weapon of assault.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove each circumstance independently in a complete and unbroken chain, consistent only with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. It also emphasized the need for reliable and cogent evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant-accused was entitled to be released and set at liberty.

JUDGMENT :

(Kalyan Kumar Surana, J.) : -

1. Heard Mr. T. T. Tara, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the applicant, namely, Shri Tulen Manki as well as Mr. U. Bori, learned Addl. PP representing the State.

2. This is a jail appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dtd. 5/11/2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Khonsa in KSA Sessions Case No.50/2019 by which the appellant was convicted of the offence committed under Sec. 304/201 IPC. The appellant was sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00 for offence under Sec. 304 IPC and he was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 7 years for offence under Sec. 201 IPC with fine of Rs.5000.00 with default clauses operating for non-payment of fine. This jail appeal was forwarded by the Deputy Superintendent, District Jail, Tezu. Accordingly, this is an appeal from conviction under Sec. 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. This Court vide order dtd. 17/2/2020, had appointed Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel as the Amicus Curiae.

3. The prosecution had started rolling on the basis of an FIR dtd. 18/12/2017, lodged by one Litwang Lowang before the Officer-in Charge, Deomali Police Station, alleging that on the previous night one of his labourer, namely, Shri Noresh Gowala, aged about 55 years, was killed by the appellant and his mother, namely, Smti. Reena Manki and that both the accused had burnt the dead body by burning the cowshed and thereafter buried the dead body to escape from their crime in order to mislead the law. In course of time, on completion of investigation, Charge-Sheet No. 05/2018, dtd. 9/3/2018, was submitted against the appellant. It may be mentioned here that on the ground that no clinching evidence could be collected against the co-accused, Reena Manki was released on her own bond by the learned Trial Court. In course of trial, charges were framed against the appellant by order dtd. 7/5/2019 under Sec. 454 IPC, 304 Part-I IPC and 201 IPC.

4. The prosecution had examined 5 (five) witnesses viz , Liwang Lowang (PW-1), Shri Anik Tanti (PW-2), Dr. Pongkhu Monwangham (PW-3), who had conducted the Post-Mortem examination, Shri Nokpam Lowang (PW-4), Sub-Inspector of Police and Shri Kagum Nomu (PW-5), Inspector of Police.

5. On the basis of evidence, the learned Sessions Judge, Khonsa examined the appellant under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and formulated the following points for determination:

(i) Whether the accused person namely Tulen Manki has committed the offence of lurking house trespass or house breaking in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment;

(ii) Whether the accused Tulen Manki has caused death of late Lt. Noresh Gowala with the intention of causing such bodily injury with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death and is punishable you U/s 304 IPC;

(iii) Whether accused Tulen Manki has burnt down the cowshed with the dead body of Noresh Gowala and thereafter buried the half burnt dead body of Noresh Gowala with intention to cause disappearance of the evidence of offence and thereby punishable under Sec. 201 IPC.

6. In respect of determination of point No. 1, the trial Court was of the opinion that the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed offence punishable under Sec. 454 IPC. It is from the evidence of the PWs', the learned Trial Court had culled out the circumstances of the alleged crime and held that the appellant had falsely alleged before PW. 1 on the next morning of crime that the deceased had assaulted him and fled away and arrived at a conclusion that the entire materials on record led to the fact that none other than the appellant has assaulted the deceased with an intention to kill him and accordingly, holding that the prosecution has proved beyond the reasonable doubt, held the appellant guilty of committing offence under Sec. 304 IPC. In respect of determination of point No.3, it was held that the weapon of offence was hidden by t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document