The inadmissibility of a confession made in the presence of the police, the requirement for establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the importance of proving key circumstances in a criminal case.

JUDGMENT :

Suman Shyam, J.

Heard Ms. Sanchita Roy, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant. We have also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel (Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam) assisted by Ms. P. Bora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Assam. None has appeared for the informant.

2. This appeal, preferred from Jail, is directed against the judgment dated 26.04.2022 and order dated 27.04.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, North Lakhimpur in Special (POCSO) Case No.118/2018 whereby, the sole appellant was convicted for committing offences punishable under sections 376/302/201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC; rigorous imprisonment for life for committing the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years for committing the offence under Section 201 of the IPC and also to pay fine separately for each of the offences with default stipulation.

3. The facts and circumstances, giving rise to filing of this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows. On 27.03.2018, dead body of a girl was recovered from the Koilamari Tea Estate Line No.15 pursuant whereto, U/D Case No.13/2018 was registered. On the following day i.e. on 28.03.2018, Sri Jyoti Mili, Sub-Inspector of Police (SI) posted at the Jahing Police Outpost coming under the North Lakhimpur Police Station, had lodged an ejahar with the Officer-in-Charge of the North Lakhimpur Police Station stating that the dead body recovered on 27.03.2018 was that of the daughter of Sri Deblal Malpaharia, who had killed his own daughter by hacking her on the neck with a sharp weapon and the dead body was concealed in a drain of Koilamari Tea Estate by covering it with garbage and soil.

4. Based on the ejahar dated 28.03.2018, North Lakhimpur P.S. Case No.312/21018 was registered under sections 302/201 of the IPC and the matter was taken up for investigation. As per the case projected by the prosecution, during the course of investigation, it came to light that the victim was carrying a live foetus and that she was impregnated by her own father i.e. the appellant herein. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant, based on which, charges under Sections 376/302/201 of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 was framed against the appellant. Since the accused/appellant had pleaded not guilty, he was subjected to trial.

5. The prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. In order to bring home the charges framed against the accused, the prosecution had examined 14 witnesses including the doctor, who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased (PW-9), the Investigating Officer (IO), who had conducted investigation and submitted charge-sheet in this case (PW-13) as well as the Junior Scientific Officer of the Directorate of Forensic Science, who had submitted the report on the forensic tests as well as the result of the DNA Fingerprinting analysis. While recording his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused/ appellant had denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him by the prosecution side. The defence side, however, did not adduce any evidence. Upon conclusion of trial the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Lakhimpur had passed by the impugned judgment dated 26.04.2022 convicting the appellant under Sections 376/302/201 of the IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid. However, the learned Special Judge has held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge framed under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

6. Assailing the impugned judgment dated 26.04.2022, Ms. S. Roy, learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that there is no evidence in this case to establish any of the charges brought against the appellant. According to the learned Amicus Curiae, the chain of circumstances so as to prove the char