Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 385
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KALYAN RAI SURANA, MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, JJ.
The State of Assam Represented By PP, Assam – Petitioner
Versus
Jashim Uddin Barbhuiya Hailakandi – Respondent
Death Sentence Ref. No.3 of 2018, Crl.A. No.389 of 2018.
Decided On : 19-04-2024
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder and Sexual Offences
Act Referred
EVIDENCE ACT: S.102, S.106, S.114(b), S.24, S.25, S.26, S.27, S.54
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.302, S.375, S.376
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT: S.3, S.4
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of murdering a minor by slitting her throat following a sexual assault. The incident emerged from back-to-back testimonies of witnesses who stated having seen the accused near the victim’s home, and a subsequent confession led to the recovery of a weapon from his house. Discrepancies emerged regarding the nature of witness statements and potential prior sexual misconduct, raising questions about the reliability of the evidence.
Findings of Court:
The victim's death was confirmed as a homicide through medical evidence linking the injuries to the weapon recovered from the accused, establishing a solid case for conviction. However, the absence of corroborating evidence regarding sexual assault and the nature of prior accusations against the appellant were critical.
Issues: The primary legal and factual issues addressed include the admissibility of the confession, the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence for sexual assault, and the interpretation of whether the case met the threshold for imposing a death sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that each circumstance forming part of the conviction must be conclusively proven and observed that while all elements of murder were sufficiently established, those of sexual assault required stricter evidentiary support. The absence of such support led to the decision to impose life imprisonment instead of the death penalty.
Result: The death sentence was set aside; the appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life.
For the Parties : Mr. T.J. Mahanta, Amicus Curiae, Mr. T. Gogoi, Adv. Ms. S. Jahan, Add. Public Prosecutor, Mr. A.I. Uddin, Adv., Mr. Mrinmoy Dutta, Amicus Curiae.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. factual background of the case detailing the incident. (Para 6 , 10 , 18) |
| 3. the prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence to convict the appellant under both rape and murder statutes. (Para 8) |
| 4. arguments against the prosecution's evidence. (Para 51 , 56 , 71) |
| 5. court's evaluation of evidence and its sufficiency. (Para 82 , 92 , 94 , 100) |
| 6. the threshold to impose a severe penalty must reflect rational judicial reasoning consistent with culpability guidelines. (Para 104 , 128) |
| 7. final sentencing and confirmation of the order. (Para 148 , 150) |
1. Heard Mr. A.I. Uddin, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state of Assam, as well as Mr. K. A. Majumdar, learned counsel for the informant. Also heard Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, who has been appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court in Death Sentence Reference No. 3/2018, he is assisted by Mr. T. Gogoi, Advocate.
2. By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of the Criminal Appeal No. 389/2018 as well as to answer the Death Reference made by the trial court under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. The Criminal Appeal No. 389/2018 has been registered on filing of an appeal under Section 3 74 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the appellant, Jashim Uddin Barbhuiya, impugning the judgment dated 1.10.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Sessions (T-1)Case No. 60/2018, whereby the present appellant has been convicted under Sections 3 76 /302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE as well as under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and by order dated 04.10.2018, the appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence of committing rape/penetrative sexual assault and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 3 76 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The appellant has also been sentenced to death for committing the offence of murder under Section 3 02 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , and was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-under Section 3 02 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.
4. By the order dated 04.10.2018, the trial court has, under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, submitted the proceedings of Sessions (T-1) Case No. 60/2018, to this Court, for confirmation of the sentence of death imposed on the present appellant.
5. On receipt of the proceedings of Sessions (T-1) Case No. 60/2018, the Death Reference Case No. 03/2018 has been registered.
6. The facts relevant for consideration of the Criminal Appeal Case No. 389/2018 as well as for answering the Death Reference Case No. 03/2018, in brief, are as follows:
i. On 14.03.2018, one Madhuchandra Riyang lodged an FIR before the Officer in Charge of Ramnathpur Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that on this said day, i.e., 14.03.2018, his neighbour, Brojendra Riyang and the first informant were doing house repairing work and his two nieces, namely, Vishnupriya Riyang and Debarung Riyang, returned to their house and noticed another niece “X”(real name not disclosed, to protect the identity of the victim, the victim shall hereinafter be referred to as “X” in this judgment) was found lying dead with a cut on her neck and on seeing this they raised hue and cry. The first informant along with his companion Brajendra Riyang rushed to the place of occurrence and found his niece “X” lying dead with a cut on her neck. It is stated in the FIR that the elder brother of the first informant had gone to harvest Jhum (shifting cultivation), and after calling him home, the police was informed about the matter over the telephone. It is also stated in the FIR that the first informant noticed the accused Jashim Uddin Barbhuiya, r
