Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Gau) 1100

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MANISH CHOUDHURY, MITALI THAKURIA, JJ.
Bharat Bora - Appellant
Versus
State of Assam - Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 70 of 2018
Decided On : 13-05.-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Z. Alam, N.D. Sarma, E.U. Ahmed, N. Nazneen, S. Sultana, N. Mahajan, N.J. Das, B. Pushilal, P.K. Das, A. Chaudhury, Md. R. Ali

The court affirmed that circumstantial evidence can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the absence of direct eyewitness testimony does not invalidate accusations when the evidence points conclusively to the defendant's involvement.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Appeal against conviction for murder - Conviction upheld where circumstantial evidence indicated the accused-appellant strangled his wife and attempted to disguise the homicide as an accident - Relationship deemed cordial prior to the incident - Prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as corroborated by post-mortem findings ruling out suicide and indicating culpable homicide. (Paras 62, 76, 78)

(B) Circumstantial evidence - Role of each accused - Legal principle established that similar evidence against co-accused does not automatically necessitate identical outcomes - Acquittal of co-accused does not absolve appellant. (Paras 71, 78)

(C) Standard of proof - Importance of establishing uncontested circumstances leading to guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in absence of direct evidence. (Paras 74, 78)

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

The case involves a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, with the appellant sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine (!) .
The investigation was initiated following a FIR alleging that the appellant and his mother were responsible for the death of the deceased, who was his wife (!) (!) .
The medical evidence indicates that the death was caused by asphyxia due to strangulation, and the injuries were homicidal in nature. Burn injuries observed were superficial and post-mortem, not the cause of death (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The prosecution's case is primarily based on circumstantial evidence, including statements from witnesses, forensic reports, and the appellant’s alleged confessional statements, as there are no direct eyewitnesses (!) (!) .
The evidence shows that the deceased was last seen alive with the appellant, and her death occurred in her house, where she was staying with the appellant and his mother. The relationship was generally described as cordial, with only one prior incident reported by the deceased (!) (!) .
The appellant did not provide any explanation for the cause of death during his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, and he did not adduce any evidence in his defense. His absence from the hospital after the incident and subsequent abscondence for several months are noted as suspicious behaviors (!) (!) .
Witness testimonies, including those of neighbors and relatives, support the inference that the appellant was involved in the murder, especially given the circumstances of the injuries and the medical findings. Some witnesses who initially appeared hostile later provided statements implicating the appellant (!) (!) (!) .
The evidence establishes a consistent chain indicating that the appellant strangulated his wife during a dispute and attempted to conceal the murder by staging the scene to look like an accidental burn injury (!) .
The court emphasized that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to exclude other hypotheses and that the chain of circumstances was complete, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt (!) (!) .
The appellate court upheld the conviction, agreeing that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and dismissed the appeal accordingly (!) (!) .
The case record was ordered to be sent back to the trial court with a copy of the judgment (!) .

These points collectively reflect the court's reasoning, evidence evaluation, and the legal conclusion that the appellant was responsible for the deceased’s death through homicidal strangulation.

Table of Content
1. criminal appeal regarding murder conviction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. investigation and trial process details. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. arguments for the appellant's acquittal. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. prosecution's burden of proof and evidence presentation. (Para 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19)
5. court's observations on evidence, witness credibility and circumstances. (Para 13)
6. expert testimony and medical evidence on death. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 25)
7. witness testimonies and reliability. (Para 24 , 26 , 28 , 30 , 32 , 34 , 36)
8. witness credibility and hostile witness implications. (Para 38 , 39 , 40)
9. evidence gathering during investigation. (Para 41 , 42 , 43)
10. family relations and prior incidents context. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48)
11. confessions and extra-judicial statements. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
12. inquest findings and their relevance. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58)
13. summation of prosecution's circumstantial evidence. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62)
14. the need for a complete narrative in circumstantial cases. (Para 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67)
15. legal standards for conviction based on circumstantial evidence. (Para 68 , 69 , 70 , 74 , 75)
16. final judgment and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 77 , 78 , 79 , 80)

JUDGMENT :

MITALI THAKURIA, J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 , Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘the Code’ or ‘CrPC’, for short] is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 03.11.2017, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Sessions Case no. 18 [J-J] of 2011, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence of murder under Section 302 , INDIAN PENAL CODE [IPC] and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 6 [six] months.

2. The investigation was set into motion on receipt of a First Information Report [FIR] from the informant, Shri Suresh Hazarika by the Officer In-Charge, Jorhat Police Station on 14.08.2010. In the FIR, the informant had inter-alia alleged that his daughter, Bijay Lakshmi Hazarika got married to the accused- appellant, a resident of Pokamura Komar Gaon, Jorhat on 02.06.2010. The informant had further stated that at around 05-00 a.m. on 14.08.2010, the face of his daughter got half-burnt by the fire from a gas stove and she was immediately admitted in the Jorhat Medical College & Hospital [JMC&H] at Jorhat. It was stated that Bijay Lakshmi Hazarika breathed her last at the JMC&H at around 05-30 a.m. on 14.08.2010. The informant further stated that at the time of lodging the FIR, the dead body of the deceased was at the JMC&H. The informant further stated that he suspected that his son-in-law, that is, the accused-appellant and his mother, Smti. Khudmai Bora, were behind the murder. Stating so, the informant requested the Officer In-Charge, Jorhat Police Station to take necessary steps into the alleged murder of his daughter.

3. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer In-Charge, Jorhat Police Station registered the same as Jorhat Police Station Case no. 489 of 2010 [corresponding G.R. Case no. 986 of 2010] for the offence under Section 302 , IPC read with Section 34 , IPC on 14.08.2010 and entrusted one Shri Bidyut Bikash Baruah, Sub-Inspector of Police & In-Charge, Rowriah Police Out Post with the investigation of the case.

4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer [I.O.], Shri Bidyut Bikash Baruah [P.W.15] of the case visited the place of occurrence, that is, the house of the accused-appellant at Pokamura Komar Gaon and recorded the statements of the witnesses who were found conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case, under Section 161 , CrPC, drew the Sketch Map of the site of occurrence and seized a number of items from the house of the accused persons by preparing the Seizure List in presence of witnesses. The post- mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was perf