Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY, HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN, JJ.
Tephoro @ Tebor Kujur - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam, Rep. by PP, Assam - Respondent
CRL.A(J) No. 26 of 2021
Decided On : 26-06-2024
MURDER - Criminal Appeal - IPC Section 302, CrPC Sections 161, 173(2), 209, 207, 313, 357A - The court discussed the provisions of Section 302 of the IPC, which pertains to punishment for murder, and the relevant sections of the CrPC regarding the investigation and trial process. The court emphasized the necessity of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting the inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the lack of corroborative evidence. The interpretations of these legal provisions influenced the court's decision to acquit the accused due to insufficient evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-appellant was convicted for the murder of Lakshman Jee based on the testimony of his son, Ata Jee, who claimed to have witnessed the assault. The prosecution's case relied on the FIR, witness statements, and a post-mortem report indicating homicidal death. The accused was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found significant inconsistencies between the testimonies of the key witnesses, particularly between Ata Jee and his brother Bister Jee. The court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly due to the unreliability of the eyewitness and the absence of the alleged weapon used in the crime.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the charge of murder against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt, considering the inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the lack of corroborative evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. In cases where witness testimonies are inconsistent and unreliable, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt, leading to acquittal.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused-appellant of the charge of murder under Section 302 of the IPC, ordering his immediate release unless required in connection with other cases.
JUDGMENT :
M. Choudhury, J.
The instant criminal appeal from Jail is directed against a Judgment and Order dated 10.12.2020 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu in Sessions Case no. 44/2009. By the Judgment dated 10.12.2020, the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence of murder and he has been sentenced under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code [‘IPC’ or ‘Penal Code’, for short] to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 1 [one] year.
2. The case was regarding alleged killing of one Lakshman Jee. The investigation was initiated on the basis of a First Information Report [‘FIR’, for short], lodged on 03.11.2002, before the Officer In-Charge, Bokajan Police Station, Karbi Anglong by one Ata Jee as the informant. In the said FIR [Ext.-2], the informant-P.W.1 had inter alia stated that at around 3-00 p.m. on 02.11.2002, all the members of their family went to the jungle to collect fire wood. At that time, his father, Lakshman Jee was alone at home. It was at about 4-00 O’clock, all of them returned after collecting fire wood. At that time, they saw the two accused persons, named in the FIR, hacking his father, Lakshman Jee with a dao. The two accused persons, named in the FIR, were [i] Tebor Kujur, that is, the accused-appellant; and [ii] Binanda Kacha. In the FIR, the informant had further stated that on seeing them, both the accused persons fled away from the scene. Thereafter, Lakshman Jee was taken to Bokajan Hospital, but he breathed his last there. The informant further mentioned that they did not know the reason as to why the accused persons committed the act.
3. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer In-Charge, Bokajan Police Station registered the same on 03.11.2002 as Bokajan Police Station Case no. 138/2002 [corresponding G.R. Case no. 376/2002] for the offence under Section 302, IPC read with Section 34, IPC.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 02.11.2002 itself, both the accused persons appeared in Bokajan Police Station with a dao and on their such appearance, they were taken into custody and the dao they produced was seized vide a Seizure List [Ext.-4], in presence of three witnesses, [i] Ata Jee, that is, the informant-P.W.1; [ii] Gathiya Munda [not a witness] and; [iii] Phuleswar Urang [not a witness].
5. After registration of the case, the then Officer In-Charge, Bokajan Police Station viz. Shahjahan Ali took up the investigation of the case himself. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer [‘I.O’, for short] recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘the Code’ or ‘CrPC’, for short] and after conducting inquest proceeding on the dead body of the deceased, forwarded the dead body for post-mortem examination to Diphu Civil Hospital on 04.11.2002. The post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased was performed in Diphu Civil Hospital on 04.11.2002 by Dr. Sudip Ranjan De [P.W.3], who was posted as Senior Medical & Health Officer, Diphu Civil Hospital on 04.11.2002. The Autopsy Doctor [P.W.3] recorded his findings in a Post-Mortem Examination [PME] Report [Ext.-3]. As in the meantime, the I.O. of the case, Shahjahan Ali expired, one Md. Sofi Ullah [P.W.4] collected the PME Report [Ext.-4] on 30.04.2005. As the other part of the investigation was found to be completed, Md. Sofi Ullah [P.W.4] who was the Officer In-Charge, Bokajan Police Station at the relevant point of time, submitted a charge-sheet under Section 173[2], CrPC vide Charge-Sheet no. 42/2005 on 30.04.2005 against the two accused persons, named in the FIR, finding a prima facie case under Section 302, IPC established against them.
6. On submission of the Charge-Sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Karbi Anglong, Diphu by an Order of Commitment dated 11.06.2009 in compliance of the procedure laid down in Section 209, CrP
The principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and that inconsistencies in witness testimonies can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
The court established that credible eyewitness testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, can suffice to prove guilt in a murder case, even in the absence of a clear motive.
The testimony of a sole eyewitness can sustain a murder conviction if credible, consistent with medical evidence, and unshaken by cross-examination.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence led to the appellant's acquittal.
A conviction cannot be based solely on the testimony of one witness unless that testimony is wholly reliable and corroborated by other evidence.
The prosecution failed to prove the charges of murder and unlawful assembly beyond reasonable doubt due to unreliable witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence.
The conviction for murder was upheld based on substantial eyewitness testimony and evidence of motive, affirming the principle that direct evidence substantiates a guilty verdict beyond reasonable do....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for reliability and consistency in witness testimonies and evidence presented by the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doub....
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
