Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 341

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, JJ.
Mustt. Mirija Begum, W/o. Habibur Rahman – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam, Represented By Public Prosecutor, Assam. And Anr. – Respondent
Crl.A. 73 of 2022
Decided On : 26-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. D.K. Bhattacharyya
For the Respondent: Ms. B. Bhuyan Sr. Counsel. & Addl. P.P.

Delay in lodging FIR and procedural deficiencies prejudice the defense, necessitating strict evidence standards for murder charges

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Appeal against conviction - Conviction under Section 302 IPC challenged on the ground of inordinate delay in filing FIR, absence of medical evidence, and defective prosecution case - Delay of 12 days in FIR raises doubts about the truthfulness of allegations; the Post-mortem Report being a carbon copy without the original was inadmissible in evidence, creating a lack of credible evidence against the appellant. (Paras 2, 6, 21, 26, 36)

(B) Right to Fair Trial - The failure to examine the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C regarding absconding prejudiced the appellant's ability to present a defense, constituting a violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Paras 37, 38)

Facts of the case:
This appeal is by the petitioner against a conviction for murder of the victim who allegedly suffered injuries on 18.05.2007 and subsequently died on 30.05.2007. FIR was lodged only after the victim's death, twelve days post-incident. (Paras 2, 3)

Findings of Court:
Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside due to prosecution's failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, absence of original Post-mortem Report, and inadequate evidence supporting the charge. (Paras 39)

Issues: Main issues included the credibility of the FIR due to delay, the admissibility of the Post-mortem Report, and the fairness of the trial concerning the failure to question the appellant adequately under Section 313 Cr.P.C. (Paras 26, 37)

Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored the importance of the prompt lodging of FIR and right to a fair trial, noting significant gaps in prosecution's evidence. The conviction was overturned due to insufficient evidence and procedural deficiencies. (Paras 26, 39)

Result: Appeal allowed; the appellant acquitted and released from judicial custody.

Table of Content
1. criminal appeal overview. (Para 1 , 2)
2. delay in fir raises suspicion. (Para 3 , 4)
3. admissibility of evidence issues. (Para 5 , 6)
4. credibility of witnesses and prosecution. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
5. court's analysis of evidence. (Para 18 , 19 , 21)
6. prosecution's burden of proof. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
7. act of absconding not conclusive. (Para 30 , 31)
8. acquittal based on reasonable doubt. (Para 36 , 38 , 39)

JUDGMENT :

M.Zothankhuma, J.

1. Heard Mr. D.K. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel and Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, assisted by Ms. R. Das, learned advocate for the State.

2. This is an appeal against the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC , pursuant to the impugned judgment dated 27.02.2018 passed by the learned Court of the Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon in Sessions Case No.208/2014 and the sentence imposed upon the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for another 2 months.

3. The appellant’s case is that while the offence of the appellant hacking the neck of the victim with a dao was alleged to have been committed on 18.05.2007, the FIR has been filed 12 days later i.e. 30.05.2007. Though the deceased had been allegedly cut in the neck with a dao by the appellant on 18.05.2007 and the deceased was taken to Hajo Primary Health Centre and then to the Guwahati Medical College & Hospital (GMCH) and had died one day after being discharged from GMCH, no report regarding the attack on the deceased by the appellant had been made to the police by anybody prior to 30.05.2007. There is also no medical document whatsoever, to show the nature of injury that had been suffered by the deceased on 18.05.2007. The evidence of the Doctor, i.e. PW-3, who conducted the Post-mortem Examination on 30.05.2007, is to the effect that there was one injury on the head of the victim which was stated to be-

“An old stitched wound over the right tempero, prarito occipital region, 18 cm in length.

The thoracic organs are congested and healthy.

In the abdomen organs were healthy, stomach was healthy and empty.

In the cranial spinal canal, injuries to the scalp is already described, on the skull, there were fractures involving the right parietal and occipital bones, Vitribe was healthy. Membrence are cut over the right parietal and the occipital region, (..Illegible..) as subarachnoid hamarage is present on the right side.

Brain is cut in the right occipital region”.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that if any serious injury had been made by the appellant on the deceased on 18.05.2007, the same should have been informed to the police. However, there has been an inordinate delay in filing the FIR, which raises doubts about the truthfulness of the allegations made by the witnesses and the Prosecution against the appellant. In this respect, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Sharma & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another reported in (2016) 9 SCC 1 .

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the original copy of the Post-mortem Report had not been submitted to the learned Trial Court and only a carbon copy of the same had been submitted, without any signature of the maker of the said Post-mortem Report. The original copy not having been produced, the learned Trial Judge could not have allowed the Prosecution to prove the Post-mortem Report, as it was inadmissible in evidence. In this regard, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijender vs. State of Delhi , reported in (1997) 6 SCC 171 .

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that no doctor, who had treated the deceased during the period between 18.05.2007 to 30.05.2007 had been made a Prosecution Witness or examined by the Court. He submits that there was no proof that the injury on the deceased had been made on