A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires establishing a complete chain of events proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and procedural issues do not negate overwhelming substantive evidence.

Judgment :

Pranjal Das, J.

1. Heard Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. G.Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent No. 1 andMs. H. Jeram, learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No. 2 (informant).

2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment and order dated 23.01.2024, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge for the Districts of East Kameng, West Kameng, Pakke Kesang and Tawang at Bomdilla in Sessions Case No. 08/2021 had convicted the Appellant under Section 302of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-; conviction and sentence u/s 27(1) of the Arms Act for 7 years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 5,000/-.In default payment of fine, the appellant has directed to undergo 3 months’ simple imprisonment each. The sentences passed by the learned Sessions Judge, are to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 02/07/2020 at about 9 am, a FIR was received from one Asang Kasidu with allegations that on the intervening st nd nights of 1 and 2 July, 2020 at about 9:30 pm, one Sang Norbu Saidu, armed with a gun, came to the entry gate of screening point site and shot dead one Dobo Kasidu. The said victim was found dead on the spot. On the basis of the FIR, NAFRA PS Case No. 01/2020 was registered under Section 302 IPC read with Section 27(1)(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 and investigation started. After completion of extensive investigation, the IO submitted charge sheet against the accused u/s 302 IPC r/w Section 27(1)(3) of the Arms Act, 1959. Subsequently, after committal and compliance with Section 207 Cr.P.C (as it existed then), the learned trial court was pleased to frame charges against the accused under Section 302 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1957.Upon the accused not pleading guilty to the charges, the trial commenced against him.

4. During the trial before the Learned Court below, 16 prosecution witnesses, 1 court witness and 2 defence witnesses were examined.

5. The Learned Counsel for the convict-appellant submits that there are material contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and that there is also mis-appreciation of the evidence. It is submitted that the disclosure statement of the accused, regarding recovery has not been taken. Due to the infirmities in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution case has not been proved sufficiently against the accused appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order is not sustainable. It is submitted that there is procedural irregularity with regard to submission of the charge sheet; that, no bullet was recovered from the place of occurrence, and that there are infirmities in the chain of custody. That, evidence regarding voice identification is inadequate, and the convict-appellant could not have been attributed with guilt on the basis of the same. Summing up of his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and order is not sustainable and should be interfered with, by allowing this appeal.

In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the convict-appellant cites the following decisions: -

1. Mohamed Sameer Khan Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Policereported in2025 Supreme (SC) 1871

2. H.N. Rishbud & Anr. Vs. State of Delhi reported in (1954) 2 SCC 934

3. Rajiv Phukan and Anr. Vs. State of Assam reported in 2009 (2) GLT 414

6. On the other hand, the learned prosecution submits that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity and does not r