Punya Mazumdar, S/o. Babul Mazumdar vs State of Assam

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Gau) 550

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KALYAN RAI SURANA, MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, JJ.
Sri Punya Mazumdar, S/o. Babul Mazumdar & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Assam, Represented through the Public Prosecutor, Assam & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 2018
Decided On : 03-05-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. A. Ahmed.
For the Respondents: Ms. B. Bhuyan, Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. J. Das, Mr. M. Mahanta.

Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code - [Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973] - [302/34 of the Indian Penal Code] - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The judgment discusses the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, the importance of motive in a case of circumstantial evidence, and the admissibility of confessional statements. The court emphasizes the need for fully established circumstances consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, and the exclusion of every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. The court also highlights the requirement of a complete chain of evidence leaving no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.]
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Amrit Sakharu. The case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence as there were no eyewitnesses to the incident. The prosecution alleged that the appellants called the deceased from his house and were last seen with him before his death. The deceased was found dead in a pitch at Kahibari village at around 8:00 PM. The appellants were produced at the police station, and their statements were recorded by the police in the presence of an Executive Magistrate. The post-mortem report indicated death due to asphyxia resulting from ante-mortem ligature strangulation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt was to be drawn were not fully established. The testimonies of witnesses were inconsistent, and the evidence did not form a complete chain leaving no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the appellants. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt, and the appellants were acquitted of the charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: The issues revolved around the establishment of fully established circumstances consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, the exclusion of every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and the need for a complete chain of evidence leaving no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The court also considered the admissibility of confessional statements and the importance of proving motive in a case of circumstantial evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for fully established circumstances consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, the exclusion of every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and the requirement of a complete chain of evidence leaving no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The court also highlighted the importance of motive in a case of circumstantial evidence and the admissibility of confessional statements.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were acquitted of the charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned judgment and order were set aside, and the appellants were to be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case. The Trial Court Record was to be returned back.

1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State of Assam and Mr. M. Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. This Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the appellants, namely, Punya Mazumdar and Govinda Mandal, impugning the judgment and order dated 08.05.2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amingaon in Sessions Case No. 163/2014, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) each and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2(two) months each.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are as follows:-

i. That on 01.03.2007, one Hanu Mohan Sakharu lodged an FIR before the In-Charge of Chamaria Police Patrolling Post under Boko Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that on the day prior to lodging of the FIR, at about 8:00 PM, the accused persons, namely, Punya Mazumdar and Govinda Mandal (present appellants) called the nephew of the first informant, namely, Sri Amrit Sakharu from his house saying that they had some works and thereafter, they killed him at Kahibari College Road and threw his body into the nearby drain. It is also alleged in the FIR that when some local people saw it and made a hue and cry, many people assembled at the place of occurrence and the accused persons fled away from that place.

ii. On receipt of the said FIR, the In-Charge of Chamaria Police Patrolling Post made a G.D. Entry No. 3 dated 01.03.2007 and forwarded the said FIR to the Officer-In-Charge of Boko Police Station for registering a case. Accordingly, Boko P.S. Case No. 35/2007 was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Shri N. Sharma, S.I. of Police was entrusted to conduct the investigation.

iii. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses and prepared a sketch-map of the place of occurrence. He also conducted an inquest over the dead body. The Investigating Officer also seized two bicycles and sent the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem examination. The Investigating Officer, Sadananda Sarma was transferred during the course of the investigation and thereafter, he handed over the case diary to one Gauri Kanta Lahkar, who laid the charge-sheet against both the appellants, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

iv. The appellants faced the trial remaining on bail. On 11.08.2011, after hearing the learned counsel for both sides as well as after considering the materials available on records, the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon framed the charges under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against both the above-named appellants. When the said charges were read over and explained to the appellants, they pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried.

v. On the basis of the charges framed against the present appellants, the Trial Court framed the following points for determination: -

“Whether the accused persons, on 28.02.2027, at about 8.00 PM, at Kahibari, within the jurisdiction of Boko P. S., in furtherance of their common intention, committed murder with an intention to cause the death of Amrit Sakharu and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.”

vi. During the course of the trial, the prosecution side examined as many as 12 prosecution witnesses and exhibited 10 documents, which were marked as Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-10.

vii. Both the above named appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, during which they denied the truthfulness of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and pleaded their innocence. Both the appellants declined to adduce any evidence in their defence.

viii. Howeve