IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
R.V. More, Wanlura Diengdoh, JJ.
Aseng Sangma and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of Meghalaya and Ors. - Respondent
Crl. A. Nos. 3 of 2017, 5 of 2018, 4 of 2017 and 6 of 2018
Decided On : 04-03-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 – Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302/34 and 161 - Power of Examine The Accused – Punishment For Murder - learned Sessions Judge found accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and accordingly sentenced them to seven years imprisonment and fine of only and in default a further term of simple imprisonment for fifteen days - Accused No. 2, and accused No. 1, being aggrieved by said judgment and order filed criminal appeals being Crl.A - Respectively, Challenging their conviction and sentence - State also being aggrieved by judgment and order, filed appeals being Crl.A. for enhancement of sentence – Held, Punishment cannot be imposed lower than prescribed punishment. - Reference can be made to decision of Apex Court - In Court case, Apex Court held that any punishment which is less than life imprisonment, as prescribed under Section 302 IPC, if awarded by any court, is per se illegal and without authority of law - Indeed, there is no discretion left with court in awarding punishment except to award punishment which is prescribed under Section 302 IPC - In light of above discussion ,Court allow appeals being Crl.A. Appellants conviction and sentence is quashed and set aside - Appellants in these appeals shall forthwith be released if not required in any other cases. – Appeals Disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
R.V. More, J.
1. The above appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 09-08-2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, East Garo Hills District, Williamnagar in Sessions Case. No. 32/2008. By the said impugned judgment, learned Sessions Judge found Shri. Waidel Momin and Shri. Aseng N. Sangma, accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and accordingly sentenced them to seven years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) only and in default a further term of simple imprisonment for fifteen days. The accused No. 2, Shri. Aseng N. Sangma and the accused No. 1, Shri. Waidel Momin, being aggrieved by the said judgment and order filed criminal appeals being Crl.A. No. 3/2017 and Crl.A. No. 4/2017 respectively, challenging their conviction and sentence. The State also being aggrieved by the judgment and order, filed appeals being Crl.A. No. 5/2018 and Crl.A. No. 6/2018 for enhancement of the sentence.
2. We accordingly heard Mr. K.C. Gautam, learned counsel for the appellants (original accused in Crl.A. No. 3/2017 and Crl.A. No. 4/2017) and Mr. A. Kumar, learned AG for the State in Crl.A. No. 5/2018 and Crl.A. No. 6/2018. We propose to dispose of the above said appeals by passing this common judgment.
3. The prosecution story in brief is that an FIR was lodged on 01-01-2006 at Rongjeng Police Station by one Smti. Bially N. Marak to the effect that her husband, Shri. Lakson Sangma, on 31-12-2005 at around 3:30 P.M had gone to Rongjeng Bazaar to purchase meat for New Year's Eve but he never returned home. She further stated in the FIR that her husband was attacked by a group of 11 people from Boldilgittim village and while attempting to flee from the assailants, he succumbed to his injury at Rongmil. The FIR was registered as Rongjeng P.S. Case No. 1(1) 2006 u/s. 302/34 IPC.
The Investigating Officer with his staff thereafter went to the place of occurrence on the date of lodging of FIR but as it was late at night, the dead body was kept at the place of occurrence and on the following morning, it was brought to the Thana where inquest panchnama was done and thereafter dead body was forwarded to Williamnagar Civil Hospital for post mortem examination. During the investigation, the material exhibit wooden log was seized from the place of occurrence. It was also revealed that eye witness saw three persons namely, Shri. Waidel Momin, Shri. Aseng N. Sangma and Shri. Timbal N. Sangma brought the deceased victim to her compound and beaten him to death at around 3:00 P.M. and reported the matter to the Sordar, Shri. Bura Sangma. The Investigating Officer accordingly recorded statement of witnesses under Section 161. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed on 27-10-2007 in which police cited eight witnesses to bring home the charge of murder against the accused persons under Section 302/34 IPC.
4. The learned Sessions Judge on 30-01-2015, after hearing the arguments was pleased to frame charge against all the three accused persons for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. Charge was read over and explained to the accused, however, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During trial, to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and exhibited the Post Mortem Report at Ext-1, Seizure List of materials at Ext-2 and Ext-3 respectively and the Inquest Report at Ext-4. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was prepared during which it was found from the record that accused, Shri. Timbal N. Sangma was a minor of 15 years old at the time of incident. On behalf of the accused Shri. Timbal N. Sangma, defence filed Petition No. 93/2017 to send him to the Juvenile Justice Board, Willimanagar. Since it was found that accused Shri. Timbal N. Sangma was a juvenile at the time of the incident, his case was separated and send to the Juvenile Justice Board, Williamn
A conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of a reliable witness, especially when corroborated by medical evidence, and the presence of adequate light at the scene can validate eyewitness id....
The court established that sudden provocation can reduce a murder charge to manslaughter, particularly in domestic disputes.
The court upheld convictions for murder against the appellants, affirming that eyewitness testimony, supported by corroborative evidence, was reliable, and distinctions made in witnesses did not affe....
Section 304 Part II IPC relates to punishment but without any intention to cause death.
The conviction for murder under Sec. 302 IPC can be sustained based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness, provided the evidence is credible and corroborated, and the intent to kill is established th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, and the importance of credible and consistent witness testimonies.
The judgment underscores the principle that a conviction cannot be based solely on the testimony of a single witness unless it is wholly reliable and corroborated by other evidence.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the evidence must form a complete chain that excludes any reasonable do....
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.