Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Mitali Thakuria, Kardak Ete, JJ.
Tade Nalo, S/o Lt. Tapor Nalo – Appellant
VERSUS
The State of AP, Through the Public Prosecutor- Respondent
CRL.A(J)/33/2023
Decided On : 18-09-2024
Criminal - Murder - IPC Sections 302, 201 - The court discussed the principles of 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 appellant was convicted for the murder of his ex-wife based on circumstantial evidence, including threats made prior to her death and a blood-stained wooden stick found at the scene. The prosecution relied on witness testimonies and forensic evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the crime, as there were no direct witnesses and significant gaps in the evidence presented.
Issues: Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must be established to exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence, which was not achieved in this case.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the appellant is acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT :
M. Thakuria, J.
Heard Mr. J. Jini, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
2. This jail appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred against the judgment & order dated 06.04.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Sessions Division, Basar, Leparada District, Arunachal Pradesh, under Section 302//201 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby the accused/appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only and in default, to undergo further imprisonment for 1 (one) year for the offence under Section 302 IPC and further sentenced to undergo imprisonment of 2 (two) years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only and in default, to undergo further imprisonment for 3 (three) months for the offence under Section 201 IPC.
3. The prosecution case, if brief, is that on 23.07.2019, one Inspector A. K. Tanti lodged an F.I.R. before the Officer-In-Charge, Dumporijo Police Station, to the effect that on the same day, a telephonic information was received from one Shri Payir @ Mayir Riddi, Krishna Colony Dumporijo that one dead body of an unknown person has been found in the cultivation field of SE RWD Mr. Kamdak, Dumporijo. On receipt of the said information, a police team rushed to the place of occurrence and found one dead body of a woman floating in the pond near the aforesaid cultivation hut. Accordingly, the Officer-In-Charge, Dumporijo Police Station registered a suo moto case being DMJ P.S. Case No. 19/2019, under Section 302/201 IPC and endorsed Inspector A. K. Tanti to take up the investigation.
4. During investigation, the I.O., who visited the place of occurrence, prepared rough sketch map, seized one wood measuring 1 meter having blood stains and human hair (suspected weapon of offence) along with some other articles, recorded the statement of witnesses and also sent the dead body for post-mortem. The deceased was identified by Miss Somi Riamuk/PW-cum-Inquest Witness No. 1 as her mother Lt. Yapak Raimuk. The accused was also arrested on 24.07.2019.
5. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, the I.O. laid charge-sheet against the present accused/appellant, along with one Shri Loma Nguki, under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, vide Charge-Sheet No. 18/2019, dated 05.12.2019, before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daporijo, Upper Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate accordingly took cognizance of the offence and committed the case before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basar, being one of the charged penal Section 302 IPC exclusively triable by the Court of Session. Accordingly, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basar, after considering the materials available on record and also finding prima facie case, framed charge against the present accused/appellant under the aforesaid Sections. The charges were read over and explained to the accused/appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. During the trial of the case, the prosecution examined as many as 6 (six) numbers of witnesses including the I.O., 2 (two) inquest witnesses and 2 (two) seizure witnesses. The prosecution also exhibited some documents and material exhibits. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Sessions Division, Basar, Leparada District, Arunachal Pradesh, after hearing the parties and on perusal of the materials available on records, vide judgment & order dated 06.04.2022, convicted the accused/appellant under Sections 302//201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him, as aforesaid.
7. On being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid impugned judgment & sentence dated 06.04.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Sessions Division, Bas
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to the accused's guilt, with no reasonable doubt of innocence for a conviction.
The prosecution must conclusively establish guilt through circumstantial evidence, including motive and cause of death, in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
The court upheld the conviction under IPC Section 302, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt without the accused providing an adeq....
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
It is well settled that in a case of circumstantial evidence, circumstances should be such so as to lead to only one irresistible conclusion, which is incompatible with innocence of accused.
The court emphasized that a dying declaration must be corroborated and that the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in circumstantial cases.
The judgment establishes the principles of circumstantial evidence, the last seen theory, and the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act in establishing guilt in criminal cases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases and the need for a complete chain of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable dou....
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, all links in the evidence chain must be established beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
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
