THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, CJ, ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
National Investigation Agency (NIA) – Appellant
Versus
Bishnu Narzary – Respondent
Death Sentence Ref. No. 5 of 2018
Decided On : 30-01-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of procedural history and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. factual background regarding the incident and investigation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. arguments regarding challenges to evidentiary value. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. further arguments on the necessity of a fair trial. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. counterarguments presented by the prosecution. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. court's initial observations on the evidence presented. (Para 26 , 27) |
| 7. discussion on the adequacy of prosecution evidence. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 8. examination of eyewitness testimony and its implications. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 9. critique of photo identification process. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 10. legal standards for cause of action regarding possession. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 11. issues with seizure and recovery evidence. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 12. analysis of inconsistencies in witness narratives. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 13. foundational evidentiary requirements under the evidence act. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65) |
| 14. examination of electronic evidence reliability. (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70) |
| 15. challenges relating to electronic records and transcripts. (Para 71 , 72 , 73 , 74) |
| 16. discussion of the legality and admissibility of intercepted conversations. (Para 75 , 76 , 77 , 78) |
| 17. conspiracy evidence and required standards for proof. (Para 79 , 80 , 81 , 82) |
| 18. overall evaluation of prosecution's failure to prove charges. (Para 83 , 84 , 85 , 86) |
| 19. final judgment and directions regarding acquittal. (Para 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99) |
JUDGMENT :
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
1. The Death Sentence Ref. No. 5/2018, Crl. A. No. 342/2018, Crl. A. No. 358/2018, Crl. A. No. 93/2019 and Crl. A. No. 171/2019, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this Common Judgment and Order.
2. We have heard Mr K. Gogoi, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam, assisted by Mr. R. R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, for the State in Death Sentence Ref. No. 5/2018 and Mr. A. K. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr D. K. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate for the appellants in Crl. A. No. 342/2018, Crl. A. No. 358/2018, Crl. A. No. 93/2019 and Crl. A. No. 171/2019. We have also heard Mr K. Agrawal, Learned Amicus Curiae.
3. By the impugned judgment dated 29.08.2018 and Order of sentence dated 15.09.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, NIA, Assam, Guwahati in Special NIA Case No. 04/2015, the accused/appellants were convicted and sentence in the following manner:-
4. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that on 23.12.2014, the villagers of Santipur and Hatijuli area under Dhekiajuli Police Station were attacked by the cadre of the extremist group of NDFB(S). The incident of firing took place between 04:00 PM and 05:00 PM. In the aforesaid incident, six people died, and two were injured. Accordingly, a GD entry was made, and Assam Police started an investigation. The dead bodies were sent for post-mortem, and the injured were sent for medical examination and treatment in the Kanaklata Civil Hospital, Tezpur.
5. PW-1, Lakheswar Mirdha, lodged the FIR. Accordingly, Dhekiajuli PS Case No. 738/2014 was registered. The Assam Police continued the investigation until 06-01-2015, when it was handed over to the National Investigating Authority (in short, NIA). Thereafter, the National Investigating Authority continued with the investigation and filed a charge sheet against the four appellants before the Special Judge, NIA, Assam.
6. The learned Special Judge framed charges under Sections 120B, 121, 121A, read with Sections 302, 307, and 34 of IPC, Sections 7, 25(1-A) Arms Act, Section 5 of Explosive Substance Act and Sections 16(1)(a), 18 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and read over to the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty, and accordingly, the trial proceeded.
7. During the Trial, to bring home the charges, the prosecution ex
Arjun Panditrao Kotkar vs. Kailash Kusandrao Grantial
Muhammad Inayatullah vs. State of Maharashtra
Bijoy Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan
Lakshmira Shetty vs. Tamil Nadu
Rizwan Khan vs. State of Chhattisgarh
George and others Vs. State of Kerala
State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afshan Guru
Ravinder Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh Vs. Republic of India
Raja Vs. State by the Inspector of Police
Pulukuri Kattaya and others Vs. Emperor
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the involvement of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt due to inadequate procedural adherence and unreliable evidence.
Prosecution must establish agreement and actions for conspiracy, which can be proved via circumstantial evidence; minor investigative flaws do not negate reliable witness testimony.
Convictions for conspiracy and robbery under specific IPC sections were challenged due to unreliable evidence and identified inconsistencies.
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.