Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SUMAN SHYAM, ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, JJ.
Nabin Boro S/O Late Naren Boro - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And Anr. - Respondents
Crl.A(J) 63 of 2022
Decided on : 17-05-2024
Criminal Appeal - Murder - Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 302, Section 304 Part-II - 106 of the Evidence Act - Failure to examine wife as a witness - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction and sentence set aside
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under section 302 of the IPC for the murder of Mantu Boro. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, as there were no eyewitnesses to the incident. The appellant denied the incriminating circumstances during his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. The defense did not adduce any evidence. The appellant's counsel argued that the prosecution failed to prove each link in the chain of circumstances and that the wife of the appellant, a potential eyewitness, was not examined. An alternative argument was made regarding the application of Explanation 1 & 4 of section 300 of IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the incident took place in the appellant's house, resulting in the death of Mantu Boro. The medical evidence and circumstantial evidence established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The court also noted the appellant's failure to offer any explanation for the circumstances of the incident. Regarding the non-examination of the wife as a witness, the court held that there was a genuine doubt about her presence at the place of occurrence and that adverse inference against the prosecution was not warranted. The court considered the alternative argument and concluded that the appellant's case fell within the explanations 1 & 4 of section 300 of the IPC.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, failure to examine a potential eyewitness, and the application of the explanations under section 300 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of circumstantial evidence in proving the guilt of the appellant. It also highlighted the lack of evidence regarding the presence of the wife at the place of occurrence and the absence of adverse inference against the prosecution. The court's decision to apply the explanations under section 300 of the IPC was based on the absence of premeditation and the circumstances surrounding the incident.
Final Decision: The conviction under section 302 of the IPC and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life were set aside. The appellant was instead convicted under section 304 Part-II of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.
JUDGMENT :
Suman Shyam, J
1. Heard Ms. S. Roy, learned Legal Aid Counsel, appearing for the appellant. We have also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned APP, Assam, appearing for the State. None is present on behalf of the informant.
2. This criminal appeal, preferred from jail, is directed against the judgement dated 15/12/2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon, in Sessions case No. 184/2018, convicting the sole appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for committing the murder of deceased Mantu Boro and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-with default stipulation.
3. The prosecution case, as unfolded from the materials on record, briefly stated, is that on 29/04/2017, Sri Ranjit Boro had lodged an ejahar with the Officer-in-Charge, Mayong Police Station, informing the Police that at about 9-30 a.m. on that day, while his neighbour Nabin Boro was assaulting his wife, his elder brother Mantu Boro intervened in the matter so as to separate them. However, without any rhyme or reason, Nabin Boro struck on the neck of his elder brother with a broken liquor bottle causing grievous injury to him which had resulted in the death of his elder brother. On receipt of the ejahar dated 29/04/2017, Mayong PS case No. 77/2017 was registered under section 302 of the IPC and the matter was taken up for investigation by the Police.
4. During the course of investigation, the Police had drawn sketch map of the place of occurrence ; conducted inquest; sent the dead body for post-mortem examination, recorded the statement of the witnesses; seized the broken liquor bottle recovered on being led by the accused and also arrested the FIR named accused Nabin Boro. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the accused/appellant under section 302 of the IPC.
5. The case being one triable by the Court of Sessions Judge, the matter was committed to the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Morigaon, who, after hearing the parties, had framed charge against the accused person under section 302 of the IPC which was read over and explained to the accused. However, the accused Nabin Boro had pleaded not guilty. As such, the matter went up for trial.
6. The prosecution case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence. To prove the charge brought against the accused, the prosecution side had examined 7 (seven) witnesses including the Doctor (PW-5) who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and the IO (PW-7), who had conducted the investigation in connection with the aforementioned Police case.
7. The defence side did not adduce any evidence. However, during his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him by the prosecution side and has pleaded innocence.
8. Upon completion of trial, the learned Court below had analyzed the evidence on record and came to the finding that the charge brought against the appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted under section 302 of IPC and awarded sentence, in the manner, as aforementioned.
9. The basic argument of Ms. S. Roy, learned Legal Aid Counsel is to the effect that in the absence of any eye witness to the occurrence, it was incumbent upon the prosecution side to prove the charge brought against the accused by circumstantial evidence, thus, establishing each link in the chain of circumstances. However, according to Ms. Roy, the prosecution has failed to prove each link in the chain of circumstances so as to establish the charge. As such, submits Ms. Roy, it cannot be said that the charge brought against the appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. In support of her above argument, Ms. Roy has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Indrajit Das Vs. the State of Tribura reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 152.
The judgment emphasizes the significance of circumstantial evidence in establishing guilt and highlights the application of section 106 of the Evidence Act. It also clarifies the principles regarding....
Criminal Law – Offence of Murder - Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - Prosecution has succeeded in establishing other circumstances in chain raising a strong presumption of guilt ag....
Point of Law : Prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge brought against the accused beyond reasonable doubt by adducing circumstantial evidence. Each link in the chain of circumstances has bee....
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
The burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and the establishment of a strong presumption against the accused in cases where the deceased is found inside a closed house influence....
The court established that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to prove guilt, and the failure of the appellant to explain the injuries sustained by the deceased led to conviction unde....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
