THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, JJ
Arman Ali S/o- Late Mokbul Ali - Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam - Respondent
Crl.A. 136 of 2024
Decided On : 20-02-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 / 34 - Conviction and sentencing of accused for murder - Three accused convicted, two appeal - Evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt against appellants - Relationship with deceased was cordial, no animosity - Benefit of doubt granted to appellants. (Paras 1 , 30 , 33 )
(B) Criminal Law - Burden of proof - Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion insufficient for conviction. (Paras 30 , 32 )
(C) Eyewitness Testimony - A single reliable eyewitness can suffice for conviction, but must be corroborated by credible evidence. (Paras 19 , 25 )
Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from a conviction under IPC for murder, where the appellants were accused of involvement in the stabbing of the victim, but evidence indicated they may have attempted to assist him. (Paras 1 - 4 )
Findings of Court:
The court found insufficient evidence to convict the appellants, emphasizing the need for proof beyond reasonable doubt and the cordial relationship with the victim's family. (Paras 30 , 33 )
Issues: The main issues included whether the evidence was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the role of the appellants in the incident. (Paras 30 , 32 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere suspicion cannot replace proof; the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. (Paras 30 , 32 )
Result: Appeal allowed; convictions set aside.
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Medhi , J.
The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against a judgment dated 16.12.2023 and order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar at Silchar in Sessions Case No. 125/2018. Vide the impugned judgment, 3 nos. of accused persons have been convicted under Sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo for life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default further simple imprisonment for 3 months. The present appeal has been preferred by two nos. of appellants, namely, Arman Ali and Lukman Ali.
2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 07.04.2017 by the PW1, who is the wife of the victim Amir Ali. It has been alleged that on the previous evening at about 07:00 PM, the accused no. 1 Ramjan Ali had came to their house and took her husband Amir Ali to his house and after about 15 minutes the screams of the husband could be heard from the house of the accused persons. She accordingly rushed and saw the accused person no. 2, Arman Ali pulling a bloodied dagger out of the abdomen of her husband and accused Ramjan Ali fled away when he saw her. She accordingly raised an alarm whereupon the neighbours arrived and the husband was taken to the hospital for treatment whereafter he was declared dead. It may be mentioned that in the FIR, 4 no. of persons were named as accused including the present appellants as accused nos. 2 and 3.
3. After registration of the formal FIR, the investigation was done leading to framing of the charges. The charges were accordingly framed under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC against accused Ramjan Ali, Arman Ali and Lukman Ali, out of which the accused nos. 2 and 3 are the appellants in this present appeal. The accused persons denied the charges and accordingly the trial had begun in which 12 nos. of prosecution witnesses were examined.
4. The informant was examined as PW1. She had deposed that present rd appellants are neighbours and the 3 accused Ramjan Ali is their relative who lives in another village. She deposed that on that particular evening, accused Ramjan Ali came and called her husband and thereafter the husband followed the said accused to the house of appellant Lukman Ali. Thereafter, she heard a hue and cry of her husband and immediately rushed to the house of the accused person and could see that the husband was lying on the courtyard of the house of the accused. She deposed of witnessing Arman Ali taking out a dagger from the belly of the husband and accused Ramjan Ali was running away from there. The injured husband was accordingly taken to the Dewan Hospital wherefrom he was shifted to Laboc Hospital. The husband, however succumbed to his injuries and the body was sent for post-mortem. The ejahar was accordingly lodged in the next morning. In her cross-examination PW1 had, however stated that there was no animosity with the present appellant and the relationship was very cordial.
5. PW2 is Bhojan Bin, who is a neighbour, had deposed that hearing hue and cry in the said evening, he came to the house of the appellant and PW1 had told him that accused Ramjan Ali had caused stab injury to her husband and fled away.
6. PW3 is a Garden Worker, who appears to be a hearsay witness. In his cross-examination, he had however stated that he had put his signature on a blank paper.
7. PW4 and PW5 are seizure witnesses of the Seizure List which was exhibited as Exhibit 2. The said witnesses, however also appear to be hearsay witnesses.
8. PW6 is the daughter of the deceased and her deposition would be relevant in the adjudication of the present appeal. She had stated that on the fateful evening, they were having tea when accused Ramjan had come and told her father to accompany him to the house of the other two accused namely the appellants as they were calling him. Accordingly, her fat
Jaikam Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 13 SCC 716
Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2023) 5 SCC 350
State of U.P. Vs. Ram Swarup and Anr. (1974) 4 SCC 764
Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1996) 1 SCC 614
State of Rajasthan Vs. Dhool Singh reported in (2004) 12 SCC 546
Sujit Biswas Vs State of Assam reported in (2013) 12 SCC 406
Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2773
In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a continuous chain linking the accused to the crime, and mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 302 IPC based on credible eyewitness testimony and established that the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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....
Conviction in criminal trials requires proof beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for a guilty verdict.
If the deceased had died on the previous day then it cannot be believed that the informant i.e. the PW-5 and the other members of the family including the PW-1 were not aware of the actual incident.
A conviction for murder can be sustained based on the credible testimony of a single eyewitness, corroborated by medical evidence and circumstantial facts establishing motive.
The judgment emphasizes the significance of circumstantial evidence, the reversed burden on the accused to explain incriminating circumstances, and the duty of the accused to offer a plausible explan....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.