Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Gau) 2156

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
Rishiram Sarmah S/o. Sri Chabilal Sarmah - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam Rep. By PP, Assam - Respondent
CRL.A(J) No. 35 of 2021
Decided On : 10-01-2025
Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellant : Mr. B Baruah
For the Respondent : Ms. B. Bhuyan, Sr. Adv & Addl. P.P.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. B. Baruah, Adv.
For the Respondents: Ms. B. Bhuyan, Sr. Adv & Addl. P.P.

Extra-judicial confessions can be admissible if made voluntarily; corroboration from multiple credible witnesses and medical evidence supports conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302 and 201 - Conviction for murder and destruction of evidence - Appellant sentenced to life imprisonment and fines; confession made and proven despite claims of coercion. (Paras 3, 62, 78)

(B) Extra-judicial Confession - Validity and corroboration requirements - Statements made to villagers considered adequately trustworthy. (Paras 14, 18, 69)

(C) Medical Evidence - Post-mortem examination indicates cause of death consistent with homicide; ligature marks corroborate testimonies. (Paras 68, 76)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for murdering Bimala Rai, aged 18, whose body was found buried; the appellant confessed to villagers about killing her after a love affair and led them to the burial site. (Paras 4, 14, 71)

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the conviction based on strong circumstantial evidence, including multiple witness testimonies and the appellant's extra-judicial confession corroborated by medical evidence. (Paras 71, 77)

Issues: The court addressed the admissibility of the confession, reliability of witness testimonies, and the sufficiency of evidence for conviction. (Paras 66, 70)

Ratio Decidendi: The conviction was supported by sufficient evidence from multiple witnesses, and the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant was considered voluntarily made and credible, ruling out suicide. (Paras 69, 74)

Result: Appeal dismissed. Conviction upheld.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Baruah, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Senior Advocate assisted by the learned counsel Ms. R. Das, representing the State of Assam.

2. This Jail Appeal has been registered upon receiving the petition of appeal from the appellant, Rishiram Sarmah, who is currently serving his sentence as per the impugned judgment in the District Jail, Udalguri.

3. The appellant has impugned the judgment dated 19.02.2021, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri in the Sessions Case No. 40(U)/2016, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment of 6 months under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for 4(four) months under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The facts relevant for adjudication of the instant appeal, in brief, are as follows: -

i. That, on 29.01.2016, one Jit Bahadur Rai had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Rowta Police Station, inter alia, alleging that, at around 10.00PM, on 20.01.2016, his younger sister namely, Smt. Bimala Rai, who was aged about 18 years 6 months went missing from the house of his paternal uncle, Shri Surya Bahadur Rai. It is also stated in the FIR that on 26.01.2016, the information in this regard was given to the Rowta Police Station. It is also stated that later on, the public, on suspicion questioned the appellant Rishiram Sarmah, who confessed that he had killed Bimala Rai and kept her dead body buried and he took the public to the place where he had buried the dead body.

ii. Later on, the matter was informed to the Rowta Police Station and the appellant was nabbed. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, Rowta Police Case No. 12/2016 was registered under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code and SI Khagendra Hazarika was entrusted with the investigation of the case.

iii. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, prepared the sketch map and recorded the statement of witnesses, and made seizure of relevant materials. The dead body of the victim girl was disinterred from the place where she was buried. The inquest of the dead body was also done. The Investigating Officer also got the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The confessional statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

iv. After completion of the investigation, finding sufficient materials against the present appellant, the charge sheet was laid against him under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code.

v. After committal of the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, the charges under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellant by order dated 17.05.2016. When the said charges were read over and explained to the appellant, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The appellant faced the trial by remaining in judicial custody.

vi. To bring home the charges against the appellant, the prosecution side examined as many as 28 witnesses and proved 23 documents. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, during which he denied the truthfulness of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and pleaded his innocence. However, he declined to adduce any evidence in his defense.

vii. Ultimately, by the judgment which is impugned in this appeal, the appellant was convicted and sentenced in the manner as already described in paragraph No. 3 of th