IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MANISH CHOUDHURY, MALASRI NANDI, JJ.
Budhiram Mardi, Udalguri, Assam – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam, rep. by PP, Assam – Respondent
Crl. A.(J.) No.52 Of 2020
Decided On : 11-03-2024
JUDGMENT : [IPC] - Criminal Law - 302/448/143 - The judgment discusses the conviction of the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 302/448/143, Indian Penal Code [IPC]. The court found the accused guilty of the charges under Sections 448 and 143, but acquitted him of the charge under Section 302, IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the accused-appellant being convicted for offences under Sections 302/448/143, IPC, based on the prosecution's case that the accused, along with others, committed house trespass, rape, and murder. The accused-appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and fines.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of the charges under Sections 448 and 143, but acquitted him of the charge under Section 302, IPC, due to lack of conclusive evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The issues revolved around the prosecution's case of house trespass, rape, and murder, and the accused-appellant's plea of alibi and absence of conclusive evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for conclusive evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The court also highlighted the burden of proof on the prosecution and the requirement for a complete chain of evidence.
Final Decision: The accused-appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 302, IPC, and the charge under Section 143, IPC. The appeal was partly allowed, and the accused-appellant was ordered to be released from jail.
JUDGMENT :
(Manish Choudhury, J.) :
The instant appeal from jail is directed against a Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udalguri in Sessions Case no. 22[DU]/2014. By the said Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2019, the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 302/448/143, Indian Penal Code [IPC]. For the offence under Section 302, IPC, the accused-appellant has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further 6 [six] months. For the offence under Section 448, IPC, the accused-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 [one] year and for the offence under Section 143, IPC, the accused-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 [six] months. As per the impugned Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2019, all the sentences are to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as has emerged from the First Information Report [FIR] [Ext.5] lodged by the informant-P.W.6 on 07.04.2010 before the Officer In-Charge, Udalguri Police Station, was that five accused persons viz. [1] Sri Buddhi Mardi [the accused-appellant]; [2] Sri Deban Mardi; [3] Sri Lakhiram Soren; [4] Sri Rajkumar; and [5] Sri Prakash, all residents of Village – Jangal Bari, Police Station – Udalguri, came to the house of the informant-P.W.6 [Smti. Sapan Hasda, daughter of Sri Mangal Hasda] at about 12 O’clock mid-night in the night intervening 06.04.2010 and 07.04.2010. It was alleged that the accused persons gagged her mouth and also the mouth of the informant-P.W.6’s elder sister, Renuka Hasda and took both of them away towards Golandi River. In the FIR, it was stated that Renuka Hasda had a love-affair with one Sri Niran Daimari of Kanpur, who used to visit the house of Renuka Hasda often. The informant-P.W.6 had further alleged that some youths from their village used to prevent Sri Daimari from visiting Renuka Hasda as Sri Daimari belonged to another community. The informant-P.W.6 had further stated that on 06.04.2010 when the youth from the village found Sri Daimari inside their house, they sent him away and committed the incident. The informant-P.W.6 had further alleged that the accused persons took her away as well as her elder sister and thereafter, got separated into two groups. Two of the accused persons took the informant-P.W.6 away and the remaining three accused persons took the elder sister of the informant-P.W.6, Renuka Hasda to another direction. It had also been alleged that the two accused persons, who took the informant-P.W.6 away, had also committed rape upon her and other three accused persons who took her elder sister away, murdered her [Renuka Hasda].
3. On receipt of the said FIR [Ext.-5], the Officer In-charge, Udalguri Police Station registered the same as Udalguri Police Station Case no. 70/2010 [corresponding to G.R. Case no. 106/2010] on 07.04.2010 for the offences under Sections 143/448/376/302, IPC. The Investigating Officer [I.O.] of the case upon completion of the investigation, submitted a charge sheet under Section 173[2], Code of Criminal Procedure [CrPC], 1973 being Charge-Sheet no. 77/2012 on 30.09.2012 [Ext.6] finding a prima facie case under Sections 143/448/376/302, IPC established against three out of the five accused persons named in the FIR. In the Charge-Sheet, two out of the three charge-sheeted accused persons viz. [1] Lakhiram Soren; and [2] Budhiram Mardi @ Dhesa, that is, the accused-appellant, were shown as absconders and the only accused person, who was sent up for trial was Deban Mardi @ Madan Mardi. After submission of the Charge-Sheet, apart from the sent-up accused person Sri Deban Mardi @ Madan Mardi, the accused-appellant also made appearance. Upon appearance of the said two charge-sheeted accused persons, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Udalguri as the committal Mag
The main legal point established is the requirement for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and the need for a complete chain....
The importance of proving guilt beyond all reasonable doubt in cases relying on circumstantial evidence.
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete and compelling chain pointing towards guilt; motive alone is insufficient for conviction without solid proof.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any significant doubt arising from inconsistencies in evidence must benefit the accused.
The importance of reliable and consistent evidence, the need for corroboration of the victim's testimony, and the requirement for scientific examination of evidence in cases of sexual assault.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a conclusive chain consistent with the accused's guilt; suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal convictions.
The main legal point established is the requirement for unblemished and fully trustworthy evidence to support a conviction based solely on the victim's testimony, and the need to establish primary fa....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.