Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Kalyan Rai Surana, Kardak Ete, JJ.
Krishna Biswas, S/o. Lt. Tarani Biswas – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam Rep. By PP – Respondent
CRL.A(J)/79 of 2019
Decided On : 16-10-2023
The appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution's case was that the appellant had killed his son-in-law, Jaan Bora, by hitting him with a branch of a tree and then severing his head from the body. The appellant denied the charges and claimed that he was innocent. The trial court convicted the appellant based on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of a knife from the appellant's house, the presence of bloodstains on the appellant's clothes, and the testimony of witnesses who claimed to have seen the appellant arguing with the deceased shortly before his death. The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court had erred in admitting certain evidence and that the prosecution had failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution's case was that the appellant had killed his son-in-law, Jaan Bora, by hitting him with a branch of a tree and then severing his head from the body. The appellant denied the charges and claimed that he was innocent. The trial court convicted the appellant based on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of a knife from the appellant's house, the presence of bloodstains on the appellant's clothes, and the testimony of witnesses who claimed to have seen the appellant arguing with the deceased shortly before his death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had erred in admitting certain evidence and that the prosecution had failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that the knife recovered from the appellant's house was not admissible in evidence because it had not been properly identified. The court also held that the bloodstains on the appellant's clothes were not sufficient to prove that he had killed the deceased. Finally, the court held that the testimony of the witnesses who claimed to have seen the appellant arguing with the deceased was not reliable.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence. 2. Whether the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the trial court had erred in admitting certain evidence because it had not been properly identified. 2. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence was circumstantial and did not exclude every possible hypothesis except that the appellant was guilty.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the appellant's conviction, and ordered his release from prison.
JUDGMENT :
K.R. Surana, J.
Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant as well as Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P. for the State.
Judgment impugned in this appeal
2. This appeal by the appellant-convict from jail has been filed under section 374(2) Cr.P.C. read with section 383 Cr.P.C. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 18.03.2019, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Nagaon in Sessions (T1) Case No.51(N)/2017, under section 302/201/34 IPC by which the appellant was held to be guilty of committing offence under section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-with default stipulation and he was also convicted for committing offence under Section 201 IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-with default stipulation.
Case of the prosecution :
3. The prosecution case is that on 17.03.2017, Smt. Juma Bora, wife of Jaan Bora informed the Kaliabor Police Station that her husband was missing since 13.03.2017, and that his mobile was switched off. Accordingly, a G.D. Entry No. 316 dated 17.03.2017 was recorded at 8.00 a.m. ASI Pinaki Acharya (PW-1) was entrusted to take a preliminary investigation. In course of investigation, on 22.03.2017 at about 11 a.m., the headless dead body of the missing person was found on Kolong River by the side of the house of his parents-in-law, namely, Krishna Biswas and Anita Biswas in a decomposed state. Thereafter, the police arrested the appellant, Krishna Biswas and his wife (i.e. the mother-in-law of the deceased).
4. It was projected that on being led by the appellant, the severed head of the deceased was recovered on 23.03.2017. Thereafter on 22.03.2017, the PW-1, who was a police personnel, had lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-Charge of Kaliabor Police Station, alleging that on 13.03.2017 at about 7.00 p.m., the deceased Jaan Bora had gone to the house of his father-in-law, Krishna Biswas (appellant) and there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased over monetary issues and then the appellant had assaulted the deceased on his head as a result of which the deceased had died. The appellant with the help of his wife then dragged and threw the dead body of the deceased in Kolong River and the appellant had severed the head of the deceased by cutting it with a knife and the head was concealed under metekain the river.
5. On the basis of the FIR (Ext.2), Kaliabor P.S. case no.39/2017 was registered under section 302/201/34 IPC and investigation was carried out by the PW8, who was then a Circle Inspector. In course of investigation, the IO had visited the site and examined the witnesses and recovered and seized a knife from the house of the appellant with which he had allegedly chopped off the head of the deceased. The dead body was then sent for post-mortem and then the IO had recorded the statement of the witnesses, prepared the sketch map, and at his request the Executive Magistrate had prepared the inquest report.
6. On charge-sheet being filed, case was committed for trial before the Sessions Court. A legal-aid counsel was appointed to defend the appellant. Charges were framed against the appellant under section 302/201/34 IPC.
Evidence in trial:
7. In support of the case of the prosecution, 8 witnesses were examined, viz. Sri Pinaki Acharya (PW-1), Sri Kailash Hazarika (PW-2), Sri Dhan Bora (PW-3), Sri Joy Kanta Bora (PW-4), Sri Gajen Bora (PW-5), Dr. Bhupen Ch. Borah (PW-6), Sri Nitumoni Borah (PW-7) and Insp. Rajen Bora (PW-8). The following were exhibited during trial, viz., GD Entry (Ext.1), ejahar (Ext.2), video cassette (Ext.3), seizure list (Ext.4, Ext.5 and Ext.6), post-mortem report (Ext.7), inquest report (Ext.8), Format of FIR (Ext.9), statement of appellant made before PW-8 (Ext.10), sketch map (Ext.11 and Ext.12), charge-sheet (Ext.13), video cassette (M.Ext.A), chappal and rope (M.Ext.B), kotari (knife) (M.Ext.C).
8. On conclusion of
In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to prove guilt unless it excludes every possible hypothesis e....
Criminal Law – Appeal against conviction – Theory of last seen – Reliability of - The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between point of time when Accused and deceased were seen las....
In cases of circumstantial evidence, the chain of events must be complete and unbroken. Conviction cannot rest on inadmissible police statements or unverified recoveries. Failure to establish motive,....
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
