In criminal proceedings, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence is insufficient or presents two possible views, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused, and convictions cannot be sustained based on conjectures, hearsay, or uncorroborated presumptions.

JUDGMENT :

KARDAK ETE, J.

Heard Mr. P. Taffo, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Appellant. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.03.2023 passed in Pasighat Sessions Case No. 06/2018, by the learned Sessions Judge, Pasighat, East Siang District, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and 2 (two) months with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only.

3. The case set up by the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.08.2014 at about 1900 hours, a written complaint was lodged by one Kaling Saroh alleging that on 19.08.2014, at around 1900 hours, one Shri Tajom Saroh, a resident of Berung Village, assaulted late Tabong Saroh, a 75-year-old man and the stepfather of the accused, at their residence following an altercation between them arising out of the deceased urinating inside a room of the house. It is alleged that as a result of the assault, the deceased became unconscious and was immediately taken to the General Hospital Pasighat, where he was declared brought dead. It is further alleged that late Tabong Saroh succumbed to the injuries sustained in the assault by the accused.

4. Pursuant thereto, Pasighat Police Station Case No. 94/2014 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was registered. The appellant was thereafter arrested and his statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was recorded.

5. Since the deceased was already buried, as per the order of the District Magistrate, the dead body of late Tabong Saroh was exhumed. Thereafter, following the relevant provisions, the inquest and other examinations, including Post-Mortem Examination (PME), were conducted, and the dead body was thereafter buried again.

6. On completion of investigation, the Police submitted Charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and accordingly, charge was framed against the appellant.

7. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10 (ten) prosecution witnesses. However, the appellant did not adduce any defence witness. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

8. On 12.09.2014, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the Magistrate, wherein the appellant stated that on 19.08.2014, at around 7:00 p.m., his uncle (Pai-father’s youngest brother), late Tabong Saroh, returned home and started urinating on the verandah (Hungu). On seeing this, he scolded him and asked him not to urinate on the verandah as it would stink and also because during summer people usually sit there. Thereafter, late Tabong Saroh allegedly punched him hard on his chest, which made him angry and in response, he slapped him twice. Thereafter, he left the house and did not return for a day. He further stated that he was not aware of any incident that occurred after he had left.

9. Upon conclusion of the trial