Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Gau) 1201

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MANISH CHOUDHURY, MITALI THAKURIA, JJ.
Shyamal Paul – Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (J) No. 20 of 2018
Decided On : 02-09-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M. Dutta.
For the Respondent: B. Bhuyan.

IMPORTANT POINT
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.

Headnote:
Criminal - Uxoricide - IPC Sections 302, 201 - The court discussed the evidentiary standards for circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the need for a complete chain of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted of murdering his wife, Uma Paul, based on circumstantial evidence and alleged confessions. The prosecution claimed he tortured her and killed her after taking her for medical treatment, but the defense argued the evidence was insufficient.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a clear timeline of events, lacked direct evidence of the accused being with the deceased at the time of death, and the alleged confessions were not credible, leading to the conclusion that the evidence did not support a conviction.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence and alleged confessions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must be established to exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and mere suspicion cannot replace proof.
Result: The conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant were set aside, and he was acquitted of all charges.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

1. This criminal appeal from jail under Section 383, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘Cr.P.C.’ or ‘the Code’ for short] is preferred against a Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2017 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri in Sessions Case no. 25[D-U] of 2012. By the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2017, the accused-appellant has been convicted for committing the offence of uxoricide and on finding him guilty for the offence of murder, the accused-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another three months. The accused-appellant has also been found guilty for the offence under Section 201, Indian Penal Code [IPC] and for the offence under Section 201, IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. It has been ordered that the sentences are to run concurrently.

2. The case, Sessions Case No. 25[D-U] of 2012 arose out of Orang Police Station Case no. 55 of 2011 and corresponding G.R. Case no. 392 of 2011. One Bibhas Chandra Paul, as the informant, lodged a First Information Report [FIR] before the Officer In-Charge, Orang Police Station on 04.11.2011 regarding missing of his sister, Uma Paul and suspecting involvement of three persons viz. [i] Shyamal Paul, that is, the present accused-appellant [A-1]; [ii] Sumitra Paul [A-2]; and [iii] Sudhir Paul [A-3] in the suspected murder of the informant’s sister. It was mentioned that the accused persons, named in the FIR, had confessed that they had killed the sister of the informant, Uma Paul and thereafter, buried the dead-body inside a jungle near Orang tea estate. The informant had inter alia mentioned that the marriage between his sister, Uma Paul and the present accused-appellant, Shyamal Paul [A-1] was solemnized about 12 years earlier. As no issue was born out of the said wedlock, the accused-appellant used to torture Uma Paul physically and mentally and there was also threat from the accused-appellant that she would be killed. The informant had also alleged that the accused-appellant had entered into another marital relationship and after the second marriage, both the accused-appellant and his second wife, Sumitra Paul [A-2] started torturing Uma Paul with more intensity. The informant had also alleged that on 24.10.2011, the accused persons, A-1 and A-2 with the assistance of the third accused person, A-3 took Uma Paul to Orang on the false pretext of providing medical treatment to her and it was thereafter, Uma Paul had gone missing.

3. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer In-Charge, Orang Police Station registered the same as Orang Police Station Case no. 55/2011 for the offences under Section 120B/302/201/34, IPC.

4. It has emerged from the materials on record that after completing investigation into the case, Orang Police Station Case no. 55/2011, the Investigating Officer [I.O.] laid a charge sheet under Section 173[2], Cr.P.C. vide Charge-Sheet no. 61 of 2011 on 30.11.2011 and in the said Charge-Sheet, the I.O. charge sheeted two accused persons viz. [i] Shyamal Paul [A-1], that is, the present accused-appellant and [ii] Sumitra Paul [A-2]; finding a prima facie case against them for commission of the offences under Sections 120B/302/201/34, IPC. With a statement that no materials were found against Sudhir Paul [A-3] who was also named in the FIR, Sudhir Paul [A-3] was not charge-sheeted. After submission of the charge-sheet the case, G.R. Case No. 392 of 2011 stood committed to the Court of Sessions, Udalguri for trial and accordingly, Sessions Case no. 25[D-U] of 2012 stood registered.

5. During the course of the trial, the prosecution side examined 6 [six] nos. of witnesses to bring home the charges framed against the two accused persons, on 08.02.2012, under Sections 120B/302/34, IPC. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court delivered a Judgment and Order