IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
Anil Basumatary, Sonitpur, Tezpur, Assam and Anr. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Assam – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (J) No. 98 of 2019
Decided On : 06-05-2024
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 304 Part I/34 of the Indian Penal Code - Section 302/34 of the IPC - Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Section 304 Part I/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each, with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, for assaulting the deceased resulting in his death. The deceased's family members testified that the appellants assaulted him, but their testimonies were contradicted during cross-examination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence and the only uncontroverted evidence was the oral dying declaration of the deceased given to his daughter. However, the court concluded that the circumstances were not fully established, the deceased was in an inebriated condition, and the testimonies of other witnesses were contradicted, leading to the appellants being entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Issues: The main issue was the reliability of the prosecution's case based on circumstantial evidence and the uncorroborated oral dying declaration of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the circumstances to be fully established and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. It also highlighted the requirement for the oral dying declaration to be corroborated by other independent evidence before it can be relied upon.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants were set aside, and they were set at liberty forthwith unless required to be detained in connection with another case. The case record was to be sent to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur, and the Criminal Appeal was allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants. Also heard Ms. S.Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.
2. This jail appeal has been registered on receipt of an appeal petition filed by the appellants, namely, Sri Anil Basumatary and Smt. Lakhimaya Basumatary, through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tezpur, impugning the judgment and order dated 07.05.2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Sessions Case No. 96/2018.
3. By the impugned judgment, the appellants are convicted under Section 304 Part I/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7(seven) years each, with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 2(two) months each. Both the appellants are presently detained in the Central Jail, Tezpur, Sonitpur.
4. The facts relevant for consideration of the present appeal, in brief, are as follows:-
ii. On receipt of the said FIR, the Officer-In-Charge of Missamari Police Station registered Missamari P.S. Case No. 29/2018 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and initiated the investigation.
iii. During investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He visited the place of occurrence and drew a sketch map of the place of occurrence. He collected the post-mortem examination report and arrested both the appellants, and ultimately, on completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was laid under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against both the above named appellants.
iv. Both the above named appellants faced the trial while remaining on bail granted by the Trial Court on 31.05.2018. After considering the materials on record and hearing both the sides, the Trial Court framed charges under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against both the above named appellants. When the said charge was read over and explained to them, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
v. The prosecution side examined 10(ten) prosecution witnesses to bring home charge against the appellants. The appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, during which they denied the truthfulness of the testimony of prosecution witnesses and pleaded their innocence. However, they declined to adduce any evidence in their defence.
vi. Ultimately, by the judgment which has been impugned in this appeal, the above named appellants were convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court in the manner as already described in Paragraph No. 2 hereinabove.
5. The point for determination before the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Sessions Case No. 96/2018 was as follows:-
6. Before considering the rival submissions of the learned Amicus Curiae as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, let us go through the evidence available on record.
7. PW-1, Nirmal Swargiary, the son-in-law of the deceased, deposed that on 17.02.2018, the deceased Kesharam Mushahary, along with h
Heikrujam Chaoba Singh Vs. State of Manipur
The need for circumstances to be fully established and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, and the requirement for corroboration of an oral dying declaration by other ind....
Murder – Non-examination of Doctor who conducted autopsy on dead body of deceased and who prepared post-mortem report is not fatal to case of prosecution.
The reliability of an eyewitness is paramount, and without corroboration, their testimony cannot solely sustain a conviction in criminal jurisprudence.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the guilt of an accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, and circumstantial evidence should be fully established and consistent ....
The court relied on oral and documentary evidence to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 302 IPC.
Point of Law : oral dying declaration made the deceased ought to be treated with care and caution since the maker of the statement cannot be subjected to any cross-examination.
Evidence must be consistent and reliable to uphold a conviction; inherent improbabilities can lead to a verdict of not guilty.
The main legal point established is that the evidence of a sole eye-witness can be relied upon if it is convincing and corroborated by other evidence, even if the oral dying declarations are found to....
The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants caused the victim's death, leading to their acquittal.
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.