Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Gau) 865

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY, HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
Sri Bidul Kalita, S/O- Hema Kalita – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And Anr - Respondent
Crl.A./101/2020, CRL.A(J)/96/2019
Decided on : 18-07-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shri Bidul Kalita :Mr. P. Upadhayay, Learned Advocate, Shri Mintu Chutia: Mr. N. Deka, Learned Amicus Curiae;
For the Respondent: PP, ASSAM, Mr. K.K. Das, Add. P.P.

The conviction under Section 302 and 364 IPC was overturned due to insufficient circumstantial evidence and failure to prove essential elements of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 364 - Conviction for murder and abduction - Appellants convicted under Sections 302 and 364 IPC, sentenced to life imprisonment and fines - Prosecution established homicide through circumstantial evidence, but not beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of direct evidence and failure to prove charge under Section 364 IPC, leading to appeal. (Paras 2, 60, 62)

(B) Circumstantial Evidence - Elements - Establishing guilt must meet criteria: complete chain of evidence, consistency with guilt, conclusive circumstances, excluding all other hypotheses - Here, not satisfied as circumstantial link was weak and the evidence presented was found to be hearsay and unreliable across various witnesses, thus not supporting a conviction. (Paras 11, 62)

(C) Last Seen Theory - Application - Critical in circumstantial cases, only applicable when time gap between last seen together and the deceased’s death is minimal; here, over 12 hours elapsed creating doubt - Necessitates reasonable explanation from accused which was not provided, weakening prosecution's case. (Paras 27, 36, 56)

(D)

Findings of Court:
Trial court's conviction set aside due to inadequate proof - The appeals are allowed, and the impugned judgment is quashed, releasing the appellants unless otherwise detained. (Paras 65, 66)

Result: Appeals allowed; release of appellants.

Table of Content
1. the judgment addresses appeals concerning murder and abduction convictions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. circumstances leading to the appeals. (Para 4 , 17 , 18 , 19)
3. arguments against the conviction. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. principles of circumstantial evidence. (Para 11 , 12 , 25 , 37)
5. the court outlines the necessity for a clear link in circumstantial evidence. (Para 27)
6. the verdict finds insufficient proof to maintain the convictions. (Para 60)
7. inspection of elements of section 364 ipc. (Para 62)
8. orders to quash convictions and compensation. (Para 65 , 66)

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

Heard Mr. P. Upadhaya, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Bidul Kalita in Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2020 and Mr. N. Deka, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant Shri Mintu Chutia in Criminal Appeal (J) No. 96 of 2019. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, learned Addl. P.P. for the State respondent.

2. These two criminal appeals, being Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2020 and Criminal Appeal (J) No. 96 of 2019, preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are directed against the common judgment and order, dated 13.05.2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji in Sessions Case No. 36(DH) 2015. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order dated 13.05.2019, the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji had convicted both the accused/appellants, under Section 302 /364 IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment (R.I. in short) for life and also to pay fine of Rs.2,000/,-in default R.I. for another 2 (two) months, each, u/s 302 of IPC, and also sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 5(five) years, and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-(two thousand), in default, to suffer R.I. for 2(two) months u/s 364 IPC. Further, the learned trial court had directed that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. However, the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji had found that the charge under Section 379 IPC could not be proved by the prosecution side against both the accused/appellants and acquitted them of the said charge.

3. As both the appeals are directed against the same common judgment and order, dated 13.05.2019, and as agreed by learned Advocates of both sides, it is proposed to dispose of both the appeals together by this common judgment and order.

4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeals, are adumbrated herein below:-

Upon the said FIR, the Officer-in-Charge, Gogamukh P.S. had registered a case, being Gogamukh P.S. Case No. 05/2014, under Sections -364/302/379/34 I.P.C., on 08.01.2014, and endorsed S.I. Dibyajyoti Dutta to investigate the case. The I.O. then visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses and prepared Sketch M