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) 1081

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) 
MANISH CHOUDHURY, YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, JJ.
Sukru Urang, Karbi Anglong, Diphu, Assam - Appellant 
Versus
The State of Assam, represented by the Public Prosecutor, Assam – Respondent 
Criminal Appeal [J] no. 03 No.2022
Decided On : 26-05-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. A. Tewari, Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondent: Ms. A. Begum, Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

The court held that extra-judicial confessions can serve as strong evidence when corroborated by circumstantial evidence, affirming the lighter burden of proof in murder cases within a private home.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 383 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Criminal appeal against conviction for uxoricide - The appellant found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment plus fine on account of evidence of extra-judicial confession and circumstantial evidence of injuries sustained by the deceased. (Paras 1, 40)

(B) Principle of extra-judicial confession - Extra-judicial confession is powerful evidence provided it is voluntary, true, and made in a fit state of mind, corroborated by surrounding circumstances. (Paras 28, 37)

(C) Circumstantial evidence rule - In murder cases, particularly within a house, circumstantial evidence is often the key due to the lack of direct witnesses. The prosecution's burden can be lighter in such cases, as seen through Section 106 of the Evidence Act. (Paras 32, 39)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of murdering his wife after an argument, resulting in severe injuries, with the body found in their home. The prosecution relied on extra-judicial confessions and the discovery of the weapon. (Paras 1-5, 37)

Findings of Court:
The Trial Court affirmed the conviction based on evidence presented, including extra-judicial confession and corroborating testimonies. The conviction was upheld on appeal. (Paras 40-41)

Issues: Whether there was credible evidence linking the appellant to the crime, and if the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence given the absence of direct witnesses. (Paras 11, 18)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the credibility of extra-judicial confessions when corroborated by strong circumstantial evidence, as well as the applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act which prompts the accused to explain circumstances within their knowledge. (Paras 32, 39)

Result: Appeal dismissed, conviction and sentence affirmed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. court's observations on the evidence. (Para 9 , 10 , 13)
3. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 11 , 12)
4. details of witness testimonies and evidence. (Para 14 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. admissibility and caution regarding extra-judicial confession. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
6. explanation of burden of proof regarding circumstantial evidence. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
7. conclusion on the need for the appellant's explanation. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
8. final decision and directives for compensation. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)

JUDGMENT :

[Manish Choudhury, J.]

This criminal appeal from Jail under Section 383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘CrPC’ or ‘the Code’, for short] is preferred against a Judgment and Order dated 19.03.2021 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong at Diphu in Sessions Case no. 84 of 2014. By the Judgment and Order dated 19.03.2021, the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong after finding the accused-appellant guilty of uxoricide, has convicted him for the offence of murder under Section 302 , INDIAN PENAL CODE [IPC]. The accused-appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another month.

2. The First Information Report [FIR] was lodged by one Sunil Gorh [P.W.1] on 19.04.2014 before the Officer In-Charge, Dillai Police Station stating inter-alia that his brother-in-law [the accused-appellant] had an altercation with the informant’s younger sister, Malati Urang on 18.04.2014 over some domestic issue and Malati Urang was assaulted with a stick by the accused-appellant. As a result of the assault, the accused-appellant’s wife, Malati Urang died in her house on 18.04.2014. When the villagers came to know about the death of Malati Urang, they informed the Police at about 05-00 p.m. on 19.04.2014 and handed over the accused-appellant to the Police personnel.

3. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer In-Charge of the Dillai Police Station registered it as Dillai Police Station Case no. 11 of 2014 under Section 302 , IPC at 10-00 p.m. on 19.04.2014.

4. It has emerged that prior to the lodgment and registration of the FIR at 09-00 p.m. on 19.04.2014, an entry was made in the General Diary of Dillai Police Station vide General Diary Entry no. 368 at 05-00 p.m. on 19.04.2014 on the basis of an information given telephonically by Mangra Urang [P.W.3], the Village Headman of Upper Hatuka, Mongra Basti. It was after receipt of the telephonic information to the effect that the accused-appellant had beaten his wife to death with a stick and on registration of General Diary Entry no. 368 [Ext.-5], Police personnel proceeded to the Place of Occurrence [P.O.], that is, the house of the accused-appellant. It was recorded in General Diary Entry no. 368 that the villagers apprehended the accused-appellant after they found the deadbody of the wife of the accused-appellant inside his house.

5. The information recorded in General Diary Entry no. 368 was conveyed to one Arun Gogoi [P.W.10], an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police [ASI] at Lahorijan Police Patrolling Out Post. On instruction of the Officer In-Charge, Dillai Police Station, P.W.10 proceeded to the P.O. with the Officer In-Charge, Dillai Police Station. Thereafter, P.W.10 was entrusted with the preliminary investigation. At the P.O., the accused-appellant, who was kept detained by the villagers, was handed over to the Police personnel and he was taken into custody. The statements of the Village Headman [P.W.3] and other villagers present at the P.O. were recorded. A Sketch Map of the P.O. [Ext.-3] was prepared. The deadbody of the deceased was forwarded to Diphu Civil Hospital and post-mortem examination on the deadbody of the deceased was performed at Diphu Civil Hospital on 20.04.2014 after the deadbody was brought b

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