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

2025 Supreme(Gau) 934

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, MARLI VANKUNG, JJ.  
Shri Labanya Das, S/o. Sri Haricharan Das – Petitioner 
Versus 
State Of Assam, Represented By Its Chief Secy. and Ors – Respondents 
Crl. A. No.220 of 2017
Decided On : 28-05-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shri M. Sarania, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms. A Begum, Addl. PP, Assam, Shri A. Mobaraque, Adv., Shri U.J. Saikia, Adv.

Dying declarations must be corroborated by credible evidence; in absence of reliable proof, an acquittal is warranted due to the presumption of innocence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/34 - Dying declarations - Acquittal of accused - The Sessions Court acquitted the accused based on insufficient evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 15, 39-43)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32(1) - Admissibility of dying declarations - The court emphasized the lack of reliable evidence to support the dying declarations made by the deceased. Dying declarations not corroborated by the medical evidence indicating natural death. (Paras 18, 37)

Facts of the case:
The informant alleged that three accused forcibly took his brother, threatened him, and made him consume poison, leading to death. The accused were acquitted due to insufficient evidence, including inconsistent witness statements and negative poisoning tests. (Paras 2, 42)

Findings of Court:
The trial court found no credible evidence indicating the complicity of the accused. It ruled that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with significant inconsistencies in witness accounts. (Paras 15, 34, 43)

Issues: The primary issue was whether the evidence and testimonies were sufficient to prove the charges against the accused, considering the lack of corroborative evidence for the dying declarations. (Paras 30, 41)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that suspicion cannot substitute for proof, emphasizing that the prosecution must present credible, unimpeachable evidence, and highlighted the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused in acquittal cases. (Paras 39, 42)

Result: Appeal dismissed, affirming the acquittal of the accused.

Judgement Key Points

The circumstances of the case involve the informant (PW1), brother of the deceased Pankaj Das, alleging that on the evening of 08.03.2002, while he was absent from home, three accused persons forcibly took the deceased from their house along with other youths to Swahid Smriti Sangha, where they threatened him. (!) Fearing further trouble, the informant took the deceased to their elder brother's house in Guwahati early on 09.03.2002. (!) However, the accused allegedly retrieved the deceased from Guwahati, assaulted him around 11:00 pm on 09.03.2002, forced him to consume Daimcron poison, and left him in a critical condition at the Sangha's verandah. (!) Neighbors heard the deceased's screams, rushed to the scene, observed the accused fleeing toward Kandarpa Das's house, and arranged for the deceased's admission to Baruah Nursing Home in Nalbari before referral to a Guwahati hospital, where he died. (!) The informant lodged an ejahar at 2:30 pm on 10.03.2002, leading to registration of Ghagrapar PS Case No.18/2002 under Sections 325/307/306/34 IPC. (!) (!) Witnesses (PWs 1-4) claimed hearing screams around 11:00-11:30 pm, recognizing the deceased's voice, observing the assault and/or a liquid (allegedly Daimcron) poured on his face/eyes, finding a bottle and handkerchief at the scene, and noting a white/frothy substance or injuries, though cross-examination revealed inconsistencies, no visible injuries by some, and disputes over seizure of items. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) Scientific examination of viscera showed negative for common poison, post-mortem indicated natural death with no injuries noted in inquest or autopsy, and prosecution evidence included contradictions under Section 161 Cr.PC statements. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) A related house-burning case implicated several prosecution witnesses as accused/convicts. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)


Table of Content
1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. depositions of witnesses regarding the incident. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. scientific analysis contradicts claims of poisoning. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. trial court's findings on evidence leading to acquittal. (Para 12 , 14 , 15)
5. arguments presented by both parties regarding the validity of the acquittal. (Para 16)
6. arguments regarding reliability of dying declaration. (Para 17 , 18)
7. contrarily supporting the dying declarations' credibility. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
8. defense challenges regarding witness credibility. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
9. evidence consistency and analysis of claims. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
10. legal principles established regarding acquittal. (Para 36 , 39)
11. court's analysis of evidence and adjudication principles. (Para 37)
12. constitutional review principles in acquittal appeals. (Para 38 , 40 , 41)
13. final judgment upholding acquittal. (Para 43)
14. final determination on the appeal and upholding of the acquittal. (Para 44)

Judgment :

(S.K. Medhi, J.)

The instant appeal has been preferred by the informant against the judgment and order dated 22.02.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari in Sessions Case No. 14/2004 under Section 3 02 /34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 [Corresponding to Section 103 /3(5) of the BNS , 2023]. By the impugned judgment and order dated 22.02.2017, the respondents herein who were the accused persons have been acquitted.

2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 10.03.2002 at about 2.30 pm by the appellant who was examined as PW1. It was alleged that in the evening of 08.03.2002, when he was not present at home, three of the accused persons had forcibly taken his youngest brother, Pankaj Das (deceased) from their house along with some other youths and threatened him inside the Swahid Smriti Sangha (hereinafter Sangha). On the happening of such incident, the informant had taken the deceased to the house of his elder brother at Guwahati and left him there in the morning hours of 09.03.2002. However, the accused persons, named in the Ejahar, had again brought the deceased from Guwahati and assaulted on him at 11.00 pm and made him consume Daimcron and left him at the verandah of the Sangha. Thereafter, on hearing the scream of the deceased, the neighbouring people came and found him in a critical stage and they had also seen the accused entering the house of one Kandarpa Das. The deceased was rushed to the nearby Baruah Nursing Home, Nalbari and was admitted. However, due to his critical condition, he was referred to the hospital at Guwahati.

3. The Ejahar was accordingly registered as Ghagrapar PS Case No.18/2002 under Sections 3 25 /307/306/34 IPC [Corresponding to Sections 117 /109/108/3(5) of the BNS , 2023]. The investigations were accordingly made by the police whereupon, the charge sheet was laid. The charges were accordingly framed on 27.02.2004 under Section 3 02 , read with Section 3 4 of the IPC against three accused persons [Corresponding to Section 103 /3(5) of the BNS , 2023]. The charges were explained which were denied and accordingly the trial had begun. However, after certain witnesses were examined, the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 17.03.2006 had added 8 more nos. of accused. It may be mentioned that prior to the said order, 6 nos. of witnesses were examined and thereafter, a de novo trial was held after arraying 8 more nos. of accused persons as mentioned above.

4. The informant was examined as PW1 and he had deposed that on 08.03.2002 at about 7.30 pm, the deceased was taken by the accused persons to the Sangha where he was threatened. Sensing further trouble, the informant had taken the deceased to Guwahati early in the morning of 09.03.2002. However, in the night of 09.03.2002 at about 11.30 pm, screams were heard whereupon, the informant had recognised the voice of the deceased and ran to the place of occurrence and by using his flashlig

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