SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Gau) 1211

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MANISH CHOUDHURY, ROBIN PHUKAN, JJ.
DHANIRAM GOUR S/O SHRI RAMCHARAN GOUR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM – Respondent
Crl. Appeal (J) No. 25 of 2020
Decided On : 06-09-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A. KALITA.
For the Respondents: B. BHUYAN, R. DAS.

A confession must be truly voluntary and free from police influence for admissibility in court; the prosecution is required to establish a clear circumstantial link to the accused, failing which reasonable doubt arises.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 383 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 300 and 302 - Murder conviction of the accused for killing his wife by inflicting injuries with a dao - The trial court's reliance on confessional statement and circumstantial evidence was scrutinized - Plea of insanity raised but insufficient evidence provided - Confession ruled inadmissible due to lack of proper custody - (Paras 1, 11, 43)

(B) Confession - Admissibility - A confessional statement must be recorded voluntarily, and not influenced by police custody - A period of at least 24 hours without police influence is necessary for the confession to be considered voluntary - (Paras 27, 29)

(C) Circumstantial Evidence - The prosecution must prove that all links in the circumstantial chain lead to the accused - If the accused does not provide an explanation for incriminating circumstances, it strengthens the prosecution's case - (Paras 36, 39)

Facts of the case:
The accused was convicted of murdering his wife during the night. Evidence included a confession made to the police and circumstantial evidence, such as the accused's presence and behavior after the incident.

Issues: The main issues were the admissibility of the confessional statement and whether there was sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court found issues with the confessional statement’s voluntariness and the lack of adequate evidence to support the conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the confession was inadmissible and the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof through circumstantial evidence.

Result: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's judgment.

Table of Content
1. overview of the case and charges. (Para 1)
2. details of investigation process. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. committal and trial initiation. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. summary of trial evidence presentation. (Para 8 , 9)
5. defense claims insufficient evidence for conviction. (Para 10)
6. arguments on circumstantial evidence. (Para 11 , 12)
7. cited precedents regarding circumstantial evidence. (Para 13 , 14)
8. the court evaluated evidence supporting prosecution’s case. (Para 15)
9. medical evidence and post-mortem findings. (Para 22)
10. confession details and admissibility. (Para 24)
11. conditions for voluntary confession. (Para 27)
12. circumstantial evidence and its implications. (Para 32 , 33 , 34)
13. judicial interpretation of section 106 of the evidence act. (Para 36 , 38)
14. burden of proof regarding insanity. (Para 43)
15. final judgment and directives. (Para 44 , 46 , 47)

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

1. The present criminal appeal from Jail under Section 383 , Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘Cr.P.C.’ or ‘the Code’ for short] is preferred by taking exception to a Judgment and Order dated 31.07.2019 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri in Sessions Case No. 80 of 2017, which arose out of G.R. Case No. 821 of 2017 and Dimakuchi Police Station Case No. 60 of 2017. Finding guilty of the offence of murder under Section 300 , INDIAN PENAL CODE [IPC], the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri, by the afore-mentioned Judgment and Order, has sentenced the accused-appellant under Section 302 , IPC to undergo imprisonment for life. It has been observed in the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence that there is no need to award fine in the given circumstances of the case.

2. The investigation into the case, Dimakuchi Police Station Case No. 60 of 2017 was commenced on lodgement of a First Information Report [FIR] by one Ram Charan Gour [PW-1] as the informant before the Officer In-Charge, Dimakuchi Police Station at 08-30 a.m. on 10.07.2017. In the FIR, the informant-Ram Charan Gour [PW-1] stated inter alia to the effect that when at around 02-20 a.m. on 10.07.2017 his daughter-in-law, Champawati Gour was sleeping, his son-Dhaniram Gour, that is, the accused killed her by inflicting blows on her neck by a dao. The informant mentioned that his son, that is, the accused was having mental disturbance from a few days earlier. On receipt of the FIR [Ext.1], the Officer In-Charge, Dimakuchi Police Station [PW-8] registered the same as Dimakuchi Police Station Case No. 60 of 2017 for the offence under Section 302 , IPC and took up the investigation of the case as its Investigating Officer [I.O.] as he had already undertaken preliminary investigation of the case in reference to general diary entry, already registered as Dimakuchi Police Station General Diary Entry No. 185 dated 10.07.2017.

3. During the course of investigation, the I.O. [PW-8] visited the place of occurrence [P.O.] on 10.07.2017 itself and prepared a Sketch Map of the P.O. [Ext.5]. An inquest proceeding on the dead-body of the deceased was performed on 10.07.2017 by the Executive Magistrate in presence of the I.O. [PW-8] and the Executive Magistrate prepared an Inquest Report [Ext.3] recording the findings therein. After the inquest proceeding, the dead-body of the deceased was sent to Udalguri Civil Hospital on 10.07.2017 itself for post-mortem examination and the Medical & Health Officer, Udalguri Civil Hospital performed the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased on 10.07.2017 and prepared a Post-Mortem Examination [PME] Report [Ext.4] recording his findings therein. The I.O. [PW-8] also recorded the statements of a number of witnesses under Section 161 , Cr.P.C. The accused after arrest, was produced before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate [CJM], Udalguri on 10.07.2017 along with the arrest memo, the forwarding report and other relevant documents. The I.O. [PW-8] also produced a dao, seized by him, before th

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top