1. Appeal against conviction under Sections 302 and 436 IPC for murder and arson. (Para 2 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Gau) 1347
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, RAJESH MAZUMDAR, JJ.
Sibeswar Maslai, S/o. Lt. Sujai Maslai – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam – Respondent
Crl.A(J)/6 Of 2018
Decided On : 24-07-2026
Important Points
A plea of guilty at framing of charge under Section 229 Cr.P.C., a valid confession under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and admissions under Section 313 Cr.P.C., when corroborated by credible eyewitness testimony, can sustain a conviction for murder and arson even without direct evidence for all charges.
Subject
Criminal Law - Conviction and Sentencing
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 436, 324 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 164, 229, 311, 313, 391 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 165 - Appeal against conviction for murder and arson - Appellant pleaded guilty at framing of charge under Section 229 but trial proceeded - Whether plea of guilt can be acted upon along with other evidence - Whether confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was validly recorded with safeguards - Whether admission in examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. can be used as substantive evidence - Appreciation of ocular evidence - Single eyewitness (injured) - Additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. ordered by appellate court.
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 164 - Recording of confessional statement - Safeguards required - Compliance with High Court Rules - Reflection time, voluntariness - If safeguards met, confession can be acted upon - Reliance on Supreme Court precedents.
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Purpose is to give accused opportunity to explain adverse circumstances - Admission of guilt in Section 313 examination can corroborate plea of guilt and confession - Reliance on Supreme Court precedents.
(D) Evidence - Ocular evidence - Single eyewitness - Injured witness - Evidence must have ring of truth - If not shaken in cross-examination, can be basis of conviction - Reliance on Supreme Court precedents. (E) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 229 - If accused pleads guilty, Judge may convict him - Trial may still proceed to be doubly sure - Recording of plea of guilt does not preclude consideration of other evidence.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 436 IPC for murder of the Gaonburah (village head) and his own two daughters, and for setting fire to houses and a school. He pleaded guilty at framing of charge but trial proceeded. He made a confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. admitting to killing the Gaonburah and his daughter (impliedly his own daughters). In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he admitted to killing the Gaonburah and his two daughters. The prosecution examined eight witnesses. On appeal, the High Court directed additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. of four court witnesses, including the injured son of the Gaonburah (CW-1) who saw the appellant strike the Gaonburah's head with a dao. No eyewitness saw the killing of the daughters.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the appellant's plea of guilt at framing of charge, his confession under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (validly recorded with safeguards), and his admission in Section 313 examination, coupled with the unimpeached evidence of CW-1 (injured eyewitness), proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt for murder of the Gaonburah. For the murder of the two daughters, though there was no direct eyewitness, the appellant's own admissions in plea of guilt and Section 313 examination, along with the post-mortem evidence, were sufficient. The appeal was dismissed.
Issues: (1) Whether the trial court can proceed with trial after the accused pleaded guilty under Section 229 Cr.P.C. and whether the plea of guilt remains usable. (2) Whether the confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded with proper safeguards and can be acted upon. (3) Whether the admission of guilt in Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination can be used as substantive evidence. (4) Whether the evidence of a single injured eyewitness is sufficient to sustain conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a plea of guilt under Section 229 Cr.P.C. is not rendered useless if trial proceeds; it can be considered along with other evidence. A confession under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded after ensuring voluntariness and giving reflection time, in compliance with High Court Rules, is admissible. Admissions under Section 313 Cr.P.C. can corroborate other evidence. The evidence of an injured eyewitness, if credible and unshaken, can alone form the basis of conviction. The cumulative effect of the appellant's multiple admissions and credible eyewitness testimony proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 164 - Recording of confessional statement - Safeguards required - Compliance with High Court Rules - Reflection time, voluntariness - If safeguards met, confession can be acted upon - Reliance on Supreme Court precedents.
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Purpose is to give accused opportunity to explain adverse circumstances - Admission of guilt in Section 313 examination can corroborate plea of guilt and confession - Reliance on Supreme Court precedents.
(D) Evidence - Ocular evidence - Single eyewitness - Injured witness - Evidence must have ring of truth - If not shaken in cross-examination, can be basis of conviction - Reliance on Supreme Court precedents. (E) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 229 - If accused pleads guilty, Judge may convict him - Trial may still proceed to be doubly sure - Recording of plea of guilt does not preclude consideration of other evidence.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 436 IPC for murder of the Gaonburah (village head) and his own two daughters, and for setting fire to houses and a school. He pleaded guilty at framing of charge but trial proceeded. He made a confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. admitting to killing the Gaonburah and his daughter (impliedly his own daughters). In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he admitted to killing the Gaonburah and his two daughters. The prosecution examined eight witnesses. On appeal, the High Court directed additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. of four court witnesses, including the injured son of the Gaonburah (CW-1) who saw the appellant strike the Gaonburah's head with a dao. No eyewitness saw the killing of the daughters.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the appellant's plea of guilt at framing of charge, his confession under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (validly recorded with safeguards), and his admission in Section 313 examination, coupled with the unimpeached evidence of CW-1 (injured eyewitness), proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt for murder of the Gaonburah. For the murder of the two daughters, though there was no direct eyewitness, the appellant's own admissions in plea of guilt and Section 313 examination, along with the post-mortem evidence, were sufficient. The appeal was dismissed.
Issues: (1) Whether the trial court can proceed with trial after the accused pleaded guilty under Section 229 Cr.P.C. and whether the plea of guilt remains usable. (2) Whether the confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded with proper safeguards and can be acted upon. (3) Whether the admission of guilt in Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination can be used as substantive evidence. (4) Whether the evidence of a single injured eyewitness is sufficient to sustain conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a plea of guilt under Section 229 Cr.P.C. is not rendered useless if trial proceeds; it can be considered along with other evidence. A confession under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded after ensuring voluntariness and giving reflection time, in compliance with High Court Rules, is admissible. Admissions under Section 313 Cr.P.C. can corroborate other evidence. The evidence of an injured eyewitness, if credible and unshaken, can alone form the basis of conviction. The cumulative effect of the appellant's multiple admissions and credible eyewitness testimony proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For The Petitioner: Mr. S K Talukdar, Amicus Curiae
For The Respondent: Ms. A. Begum, Addl. P.P., Assam.
For The Petitioner: Mr. S K Talukdar, Amicus Curiae
For The Respondent: Ms. A. Begum, Addl. P.P., Assam.
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argued lack of evidence and inadmissibility of admissions; State argued admissions proved guilt. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. Appeal dismissed; conviction under Sections 302 and 436 IPC affirmed. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 )
4. Can a plea of guilty during framing of charge be considered despite subsequent trial?
Yes, the court may record the plea and convict; proceeding with trial does not imply doubt about guilt. (Para 12 , 33 , 34 )
5. What safeguards are required for a confessional statement under Section 164 CrPC?
Magistrate must ensure voluntariness, give reflection time, inform accused of rights; compliance with High Court rules is necessary. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 )
6. What is the evidentiary value of an accused's admission under Section 313 CrPC?
It can be considered along with other evidence; the court must evaluate it in light of the duty to explain adverse circumstances. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 )
7. Can conviction be based on sole eyewitness testimony?
Yes, if the testimony is credible, not shaken in cross-examination, and has a ring of truth. (Para 31 , 32 )
8. Can a confessional statement be interpreted beyond its plain language?
No, the court cannot put words into the statement; implication alone is insufficient to conclude guilt. (Para 15 )
JUDGMENT :
M. Zothankhuma, J.
1. Heard Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and Ms. A. Begum, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State.
2. This is an appeal against the impugned Judgment dated 04/12/2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Diphu, Karbi Anglong in Sessions Case No.18/2007, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and Section 436 IPC. The appellant was accordingly sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2(two) years under Section 302 IPC for each of the three murdered persons. He was also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years with a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2(two) years under Section 436 IPC. The sentences were to run concurrently.
3. Being aggrieved with his conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed the present appeal, stating that there was no evidence given by the Prosecution witnesses, proving that the appellant had killed the Gaonburah or the appellant’s own two daughters, even though the appellant during the time of framing of charge under Sections 302/324/436 IPC, had pleaded guilty to the charges.
4. During the proceedings of the present appeal, this Court had noticed that besides the appellant having stood trial for the murder of three persons, a number of persons had sustained grievous injuries, namely Jinaram Amsi, Noldoi Amsi, Homen Mithi, Shankar Methi and Lokhim Maslai. This Court also observed that one Bhanu Maslai was an eyewitness to the murder of the Gaonburah Talbor Amsi, as per the evidence of the other Prosecution witnesses. Though the learned Public Prosecutor, Assam had made an application before the learned Trial Court for examining Bhanu Maslai, she was not examined. This Court also found that no endeavour had been made by the Prosecution for examining the injured witnesses mentioned above, who could throw light on the crime. This court also found that the learned Trial Court had remained a silent spectator regarding the above witnesses. Keeping in view the fact that Judges cannot take the role of Prosecution or defence, and as Judges could also not afford to be a mute spectator, this Court felt that fair trial demanded that Judges must take a participatory role to secure the ends of justice. In view of the above reasons and keeping in view Sections 311/391 Cr.P.C and Section 165 of the Evidence Act, this Court directed that additional evidence of the 5 witnesses mentioned above should be recorded, besides the evidence of Bhanu Maslai. The same was accordingly ordered by this Court vide order dated 30/01/2020.
5. In terms of the order dated 30/01/2020 passed by this Court, the Trial Court records were sent back. However, the learned Trial Court sent the Trial Court records back to this Court along with an order dated 27/10/2021, wherein it stated that Smti. Bhanu Maslai had expired. This Court thereafter passed a subsequent order dated 01/08/2024, holding that the Trial Court had not spoken of recording the evidence of 5 other persons whose names had been mentioned in the order dated 30/01/2020 and who had sustained grievous injures. This Court thus directed the learned Trial Court to record the additional evidence of the 5 other persons mentioned in the order dated 30/01/2020. Pursuant to the order dated 01/08/2024 passed by this Court for recording the additional evidence of the other 5 persons mentioned in the order dated 30/01/2020, the learned Trial Court recorded the additional evidence of (Court Witness) CW-1 Jinaram Amsi, CW-2 Lokhim Maslai, CW-3 Shankar Methi and CW-4 Homen Mithi.
6. Thus, the present case has to be decided on the basis of the evidence given by 8 Prosecution witnesses and the 4 Court witnesses, relating to the death of the Gaonburah and the two daughters of the appellant, who have all been apparently killed by the appellant, besides th
