IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, (ITANAGAR BENCH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, BUDI HABUNG, JJ.
Sri Padma Sonowal, S/o. late Longkeswar Sonowal – Appellant
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh, to be represented by Public Prosecutor and Anr. – Respondents
Crl. A. No.1 Of 2020
Decided On : 15-02-2024
Confession - Murder - Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 302 - Section 164 Cr.P.C - Section 313 Cr.P.C
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the recovery of a decomposed female body and subsequent investigation leading to the arrest and confession of the accused, Monjit Sonowal, for the murder of the deceased Ratni Mura. The accused admitted to killing the deceased due to her pregnancy and insistence on marriage, leading to the recovery of the deceased's purse. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecution's evidence, including the confession, corroborated by witness statements and recovery of evidence, to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused's denial during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C lacked credibility, and the court upheld the trial court's conviction and sentencing.
Issues: The main issue was whether the confession and corroborating evidence were sufficient to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The confession made by the accused, coupled with corroborating evidence and the denial lacking credibility during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, firmly established the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment and conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC.
JUDGMENT :
(Budi Habung, J.) :
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.11.2019 and order on sentence dated 16.11.2019, passed by the learned Session Judge, Khonsa, in Session Case No. 45/2019, convicting the accused Shri Monjit Sonowal under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC hereinafter) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of 2 (two) months.
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The present case has arisen due to recovery of one unidentified female dead body from the jungle situated between Kherem Bisa village and Bisa Agro Tea Estate in almost decomposed stage infected with maggots. On 12.11.2016, PW-6 Smti. Monika Bhumij along with her friends Rina Sonar and Anita Bhumij while proceeding towards Bisa Agro Tea Estate had sensed some foul odour and following the odour, they saw one unidentified female dead body lying in a decomposed state. Thereupon, they had informed the matter to one Jiten Bhumij (PW-1), who then had informed the matter to the Manager of the Bisa Agro Tea Estate, and filed a written FIR before the O.C. of P.S- Bordumsa which was registered as Bordumsa P.S Case No. 32/16 under section 302 IPC and investigated into.
3. During the course of investigation, the I.O. of the case PW-13, visited the spot, drew rough sketch map, took photographs of the unidentified dead body from various angles, held inquest over the dead body, examined the informant and other witnesses and recorded their statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. and as the dead body was not in a position to be carried to the CHC, Bordumsa, on requisition, Dr. K. Mongchan (PW-14) conducted post mortem examination over the dead body on the spot. The I.O. also seized part of the white kurti and black leggings, undergarment and one stiller (banger) from the dead body. One piece of grey coloured with red strap ladies chappal was recovered from near the dead body and seized by the I.O. Shri Binod Mura (PW-12), identified the dead body of the deceased to be one Ratni Mura. He identified the body from the photographs, seized wearing garments and chappal of the deceased. He further disclosed that late Ratni Mura was having a love affair with one Monjit Sonowal of Kherem Kasari village. On getting the said information, the I.O. had arrested the accused Monjit Sonowal. On interrogation, accused Monjit Sonowal admitted that he had an affair with the victim girl late Ratni Mura and confessed that he had killed the deceased. The accused further admitted that since the deceased, Ratni Mura was pregnant, he decided to eliminate her and took her to the road between Bisa Agro Tea Estate and Khouji Pathar village on 07-08.11.2016 at around 0300 hours and strangulated her with his bare hands and dragged her body towards the bushes and concealed the dead body. The accused also disclosed that he threw the chappal and money purse (wallet) of the deceased on the other side of the jungle. On further interrogation, the accused led the police to the spot on 17.11.2016, and effected the recovery of the money purse of the deceased from the jungle nearby the P.O.
4. The accused then was forwarded to the Judicial magistrate First Class before whom he had given a confessional statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He had also made an extra judicial confession before his friends namely Purojit Sonowal (PW-7), Debojit Sonowal (PW-8) and Probal Sonowal (PW-9) at a marriage party at Kherem Khosari earlier on 08.11.2016, stating that he had killed his girl friend.
5. On completion of investigation based on the evidences collected and confessional statement of the accused coupled with the corroborating statement of the witnesses, the IO found prima facie case well established against the accused for commission of an offence punishable under section 302 IPC and accordingly, a charge sheet was laid against the accused, Monjit Sonowal under section 302 IPC.
6. The p
The court upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC, emphasizing that the absence of premeditation and the nature of the incident fell within Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.
Confessional statement recorded without informing to accused as to why he desires to confess and he would not be remanded to police Lock-up even if, he does not confess guilt, cannot be relied on.
Point of Law : Even sub-clause (4) of Section 164 Cr.P.C. clearly indicates that such confession must be recorded in the manner provided under Section 281 Cr.P.C.
Confessions made voluntarily and without pressure under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. are admissible as evidence.
Provisions of Section 164 Cr.P.C must be complied with not only in form, but in essence.
It is well settled that in case based on circumstantial evidence, circumstances from which an inference of guilt sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established, and that those circumstanc....
A confessional statement made voluntarily and corroborated by other evidence can be relied upon for conviction even if it is retracted during the trial.
The court established that circumstantial evidence, when unbroken and corroborated by confession, can lead to a conviction for murder, emphasizing the burden of proof on the accused.
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.