Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Gau) 762

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Sanjay Kumar Medhi, Marli Vankung, JJ.
Sajan Mura – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam Rep. By Pp, Assam.- Respondent
CRL.A(J)/5/2020
Decided On : 10-06-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A Kalita, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent: Ms. A. Begum, APP, Assam

The distinction between culpable homicide and murder lies in the nature and intent of the assault; insufficient evidence can lead to conviction modification.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 302 and Section 304 - Appeal against conviction for murder - Appellant was found guilty of inflicting death upon the deceased by assault - Court ruled the evidence presented by the prosecution was circumstantial, relying on extrajudicial confessions, and noted the absence of direct eyewitness testimony. Court held that the nature of the assault did not meet the threshold of murder under Section 300, modifying the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Paras 51, 52)

(B) Burden of Proof - Where facts are especially within the knowledge of the accused, the burden rests upon them to explain those facts. (Paras 41, 42)

Facts of the case:
The appeal stems from the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his pregnant sister-in-law, following a history of domestic abuse. The deceased was found dead after sustaining grievous injuries, highlighting a confession by the appellant and circumstantial evidence against him.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the original conviction for murder was not substantiated and modified it to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, imposing a lesser sentence.

Issues: Whether the conviction for murder as charged could be upheld based on circumstantial evidence and the legal standards for conviction without eyewitness testimony.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the appellant's actions constituted culpable homicide rather than murder due to the nature of the assault and the circumstantial evidence presented.

Result: The conviction modified to culpable homicide not amounting to murder with a reduced sentence.

Table of Content
1. appeal against conviction and sentence. (Para 1)
2. factual background of the case leading to charges. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. testimonies confirming the assault and related evidence. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 10)
4. contradictory evidence and confessions presented. (Para 8 , 9 , 11 , 15)
5. witnesses corroborating assault but lacking direct eyewitness. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
6. appellant's response during trial regarding circumstantial evidence. (Para 16 , 17)
7. arguments about circumstantial evidence and lack of motive. (Para 18 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 29)
8. support for the prosecution's case and reliance on extrajudicial confessions. (Para 20 , 23 , 30 , 31 , 32)
9. legal principles regarding extrajudicial confessions and circumstantial evidence. (Para 26)
10. legal principles regarding extrajudicial confessions applied. (Para 33 , 34 , 36 , 39)
11. court's review of circumstantial evidence and chain of circumstances. (Para 37 , 38 , 40)
12. understanding of intent in injuries inflicted. (Para 41 , 42 , 44)
13. analysis of culpable homicide versus murder. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)
14. modification of conviction and sentencing. (Para 51)
15. final order and appreciation of legal assistance. (Para 52 , 53 , 54)

JUDGMENT :

The present appeal has been preferred from jail against the judgment and order dated 20.09.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat, Assam in Sessions Case No. 170/2014 under Section 302 of the IPC [corresponding to Section 103 BNS ], thereby sentencing the appellant under Section 302 INDIAN PENAL CODE [corresponding to Section 103 BNS ] to undergo RI for life and fine of Rs. 15,000/. (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) in default, further imprisonment for six months.

2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 20.10.2014 by the PW1, who is the brother of the deceased. It was alleged that on the previous day i.e. 19.10.2014, the accused had assaulted his younger sister. He had also stated that prior to the said incident, the accused had been assaulting his younger sister since a month after their marriage. It has also been stated that the deceased was three months pregnant. On the said date at 9 P.M., the appellant had assaulted his younger sister again, due to which she had sustained grievous injuries. On receiving the said information, they went to see her and found her dead. It has been alleged, that after commission of the offense, the accused had attempted to escape but was apprehended by the local public and handed over to the Police Station. It was also stated that the accused had confessed to have assaulted the younger sister of the informant, which led to her death.

3. Based on the aforesaid Ejahar, the formal FIR was registered as Teok Police Station Case No. 324/14 under Section 302 IPC [corresponding to Section 103 BNS ] and investigation was carried out.

4. After completion of the investigation, the Charge Sheet was laid and on consideration of the same, the charge was framed by the learned Trial Court under Section 302 of the IPC [corresponding to Section 103 of BNS ]. On denial thereof, the trial had begun in which the prosecution had adduced evidence through 10 Nos. of witnesses including two official witnesses.

5. PW1, who is the informant, is the brother of the deceased. He had stated that the information regarding the assault committed by the appellant upon his sister was given by a boy, who informed him about her critical condition. He had accordingly gone to her house with his mother and brother and on reaching there, had noticed grievous injury on the left side of her eye. It has also been stated that the deceased was three months pregnant. He had also hinted upon an extrajudicial confession made by the appellant that he had beaten her and thereafter gave her medicine.

6. The FIR was proved as Exhibit 5 and the inquest made over the dead body culminating into an Inquest Report was proved as Exhibit 1. In his cross-examination, the PW1 had stated that the father-in-