THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MANISH CHOUDHURY, YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, JJ.
Bijoy Krishna - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Assam - Respondent
CRL.A(J) No. 93 Of 2020
Decided On : 20-05-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the criminal case and charges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. summary of trial proceedings and crucial testimonies. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. arguments from both parties regarding evidence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. witness testimonies and their implications. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. witness credibility and hearsay evidence. (Para 18 , 20) |
| 6. finding inconsistencies and weaknesses in testimonies. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. autopsy findings and importance of witness examination. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 8. legal guidelines on circumstantial evidence. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 9. discussion on prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 10. closing considerations on evidence and case outcomes. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 11. final judgment and order of acquittal. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
JUDGMENT & ORDER :
Manish Choudhury, J.
1. This criminal appeal from jail under Section 383 , Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘the Code’ or ‘CrPC’, for short] is directed against a Judgment and Order dated 20.11.2019 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – II [FTC], Tinsukia in Sessions Case no. 103[T]/2012. By the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.2019, the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence of murder under Section 302 , INDIAN PENAL CODE [IPC] and he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another year. It has been provided that the period of detention already undergone by the accused-appellant shall be set-off against the sentence of imprisonment under Section 428 , CrPC.
2. The prosecution case is that on 09.08.2009, a First Information Report [FIR] was lodged by the informant, Surjya Mohan Tanti [P.W.3] before the Officer In-Charge, Doomdooma Police Station. In the FIR, the informant [P.W.3] had inter alia alleged that at about 10-30 p.m. on 08.08.2009, four accused persons, namely, [i] the accused-appellant, Bijoy Krishna @ Mela [hereinafter also referred to as ‘the appellant’ or ‘A-1, at places, for short’]; [ii] Bishal Krishna @ Bom [‘A-2’]; [iii] Anit Krishna [‘A-3’]; and [iv] Pinku Krishna @ Tinku [‘A-4’]; who were brothers, got engaged in an altercation with Dasaru Tanti, a resident of Mankhowa Tea Estate, Prem Nagar Basti. The deceased, Dasaru Tanti was an elder brother of the informant’s wife. According to the informant, the altercation arose due to a domestic matter. In the altercation which occurred at Line no. 15, the accused persons assaulted Dasaru Tanti and caused grievous injuries on his head and face. As a result, Dasaru Tanti died on the spot. It was further alleged that the mother of the deceased, Paikon Tanti [P.W.2] was also assaulted along with him.
3. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer In-Charge, Doomdooma Police Station registered the same as Doomdooma Police Station Case no. 303/2009 under Section 302 , IPC read with Section 34 , IPC and the investigation was entrusted to one Babu Singh [P.W.10], a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Doomdooma Police Station.
4. During the course of investigation, the I.O. [P.W.10] arrested three of the four accused persons, A-1, A-2 & A-3 and after arrest, they were forwarded to the Court. However, the I.O. could not arrest the fourth accused person viz. Pinku Tanti @ Tinku [A-4]. In the course of investigation, the I.O. visited the Place of Occurrence [P.O.] at Line no. 15 of Mankhowa Tea Estate and recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 , Cr.P.C. The I.O. prepared a Sketch Map of the P.O. [Ext.-7] and also conducted the inquest proceeding on the deadbody of the deceased through an Executive Magistrate who after inquest, submitted an Inquest Report [Ext.-2]. The Post-Mortem Examination [PME] on the deadbody of the deceased was performed at Tinsukia Civil Hospital on 09.08.2009. After completing investigation into the case, the I.O. submitted a charge sheet under
Takhaji Hiraji vs. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing and other
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a murder conviction, and suspicion alone cannot substitute for proof.
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.
In a murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence, multiple corroborative factors, including the last seen theory and absence of alternative explanations, can establish guilt beyond reasonable ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the 'last seen together theory' and the reliance on circumstantial evidence, medical evidence, and recovery evidence to establis....
The testimony of a sole eyewitness can sustain a murder conviction if credible, consistent with medical evidence, and unshaken by cross-examination.
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be reliable and corroborated; mere reliance on the last seen theory is insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution must establish a complete and cogent chain of circumstantial evidence to support a conviction for murder, failing which the accused is entitled to acquittal.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for complete and conclusive circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
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.