Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Gau) 1299

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, MALASRI NANDI, JJ.
Mohan Kumar S/o Late Phukan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And Anr. – Respondent
Crl.A.295 of 2022
Decided on : 21-11-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. S.C. Biswas, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms. B. Bhuyan,

In cases relying on circumstantial evidence, each incriminating circumstance must be firmly established and form a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The prosecution must exclude every hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused, and the burden of proof remains on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction based on Circumstantial Evidence - IPC 302/326 - [CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE] - [IPC 302, IPC 326] - [The court discussed the circumstantial evidence presented in the case, emphasizing the need for each incriminating circumstance to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The court highlighted the requirement for the circumstances to form a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused, excluding any other hypothesis consistent with innocence. The court cited legal principles from cases such as Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra and G. Parshwanath vs. State of Karnataka to support its decision to acquit the accused based on the benefit of doubt.]
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted under Sections 302/326 IPC for causing grievous injuries to his mother and elder brother, resulting in the death of his mother. The case was based on circumstantial evidence as there were no eyewitnesses to the incident. The appellant denied the charges and claimed innocence.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on the circumstantial evidence presented. It emphasized the need for each incriminating circumstance to be firmly established and form a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The court concluded that the prosecution did not meet this standard and acquitted the accused based on the benefit of doubt.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused, the requirement for each incriminating circumstance to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the exclusion of any hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the legal principle that in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, each incriminating circumstance must be firmly established and form a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The court cited legal principles from cases such as Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra and G. Parshwanath vs. State of Karnataka to support its decision to acquit the accused based on the benefit of doubt.
Final Decision: The accused-appellant was acquitted based on the benefit of doubt and set at liberty forthwith. The court found that the prosecution did not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and concluded that the circumstances presented were not conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Malasri Nandi, J.

This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Baksa, Mushalpur, whereby, the appellant was convicted under Sections 302/326 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for another two months for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for 6 months under Section 326 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run consecutively.

2. The brief facts of the case is that the informant one Haldhar Kumar lodged an First Information Report (FIR) before the Officer-In-Charge, Barbari Police Station stating inter alia that on 09.08.2009 at about 08-30 p.m., the appellant hacked his mother Padma Kumari and his own elder brother Binod Kumar over some domestic matter and caused grievous injuries on their persons. Although they were taken to Gauhati Medical College and Hospital (GMCH), Padma Kumari succumbed to her injuries.

3. On receipt of the complaint, a case was registered vide Barbari Police Station Case no. 42/2009 under Sections 326/302 IPC and an investigation was initiated. During investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of the witnesses, conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and thereafter, the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant under Sections 302/326 IPC before the Court of SDJM(S), Nalbari. As the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed accordingly.

4. During trial, on appearance of the accused-appellant before the Sessions Court, charges were framed under Section 302/326 IPC which was read over and explained to the accused-appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused-appellant, the prosecution examined 8 (eight) witnesses. However, the accused-appellant did not choose to adduce any evidence in support of his case. After completion of trial, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the incriminating material found in the statement of the witnesses were put to him to which he denied the same and pleaded his innocence. After hearing the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the accused-appellant was convicted as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the accused-appellant has argued that there is no eye witness to the incident. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. Though it is alleged in the FIR that the accused-appellant inflicted injury towards his brother and mother, but while he deposed before the Court, he did not support the prosecution case and stated that he was not in a position to identify the person who assaulted him from behind. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution were admittedly not present when the incident occurred. As such, the conviction passed by the learned trial Court is bad in law and liable to be set aside.

6. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the accused-appellant that the investigation of the case has suffered from many defects as there was no record of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. More so, the weapon of offence was not sent for serological examination. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that the signature of the accused-appellant was not obtained in the seizure list which proves that the alleged weapon of offence has not been seized from the possession of the accused-appellant. According to the learned counsel for the accused-appellant, the lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer create doubt about the investigation which vitiates the trial.

7. In response, Ms. Bhuyan, learned Additional Publi