Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT - PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM, HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI, JJ
SRI SUCHENDRA DAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR – Respondent
Crl.A./132/2019 | CRL.A(J)/32/2019 | Crl.A./314/2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR D TALUKDAR, MS. B CHOWDHURY AMICUS CURIAE, MR. R. DEV
For the Respondents: PP ASSAM
Confessions made in police custody are inadmissible, which requires the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt for conviction.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 201 - Criminal Appeals - Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC in a case of murder - Extra-judicial confession made to police not admissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act - Prosecution failed to prove charge beyond reasonable doubt - Acquittal granted. (Paras 25-27, 37-39)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 25, 26, and 27 - Confessions made in police custody - Admissibility in evidence discussed - Need for corroboration and judicial recording emphasized. (Paras 29-32)
Facts of the case:
The appeals pertain to the conviction of several individuals for the murder of Nirjala Das, which was based on circumstantial evidence including alleged confessions made in police custody. The body was discovered shortly after the victim went missing. Prosecution presented 10 witnesses, while defense provided 3.
Findings of Court:
Court found that the evidence presented did not sufficiently prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The confessions made while in police custody were ruled inadmissible.
Issues: The admissibility of extra-judicial confessions made in police custody and the sufficiency of evidence against the accused were pivotal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that an accused cannot be convicted based on confessions that are inadmissible under the law; the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Result: Conviction set aside; appellants acquitted and released.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. convicts questioned under ipc sections 302 and 201. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. circumstantial evidence led to the discovery of the victim's body. (Para 3 , 4 , 8) |
| 3. victim's body discovered after going missing, investigation initiated. (Para 5) |
| 4. evidence must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. the court highlighted the issues with extra-judicial confessions. (Para 24 , 25 , 30) |
| 6. the prosecution's reliance on confessions in police custody was deemed inappropriate. (Para 29 , 31 , 39) |
| 7. court ruled confessions inadmissible, emphasized burden of proof on prosecution. (Para 32) |
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (Oral)
Date : 24-03-2021 (Suman Shyam, J)
All these three Criminal Appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 17.01.2019 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hojai in Sessions Case No.74(N)/2017 whereby, each of the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302 /201 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 302 IPC . For the offence under Section 201 IPC the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay fine of Rs.6000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months in addition. All the sentences were to run concurrently.
2. We have heard Mr. D. Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.132/2019, Ms. B. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant in Crl. Appeal(J) No.32/2019 and Mr. R. Dev, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Crl. Appeal No.314/2019. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, has appeared on behalf of the State in all the three appeals.
3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that the victim Nirjala Das, aged about 41 years, went missing on 12.07.2017 after she had gone to No.1 Hatikhuli Rubber Garden to collect firewood. When the villagers were searching for her on the next day i.e. 13.07.2017, they saw a newly dug up pit covered y soil and informed the Lumding Police Station. The police had arrived at the spot along with the Executive Magistrate, dug up the pit and took out the dead body of a woman (victim) who was later identified by the son of the victim.
4. The husband of the victim, Sri Gunadhar Das, had gone to Kolkata at that time but immediately upon receipt of information about his wife, he returned back to Lumding and lodged an ejahar with the Officer-in-Charge of Lumding Police Station on 14.07.2017. In the ejahar dated 14.07.2017, the informant had also mentioned that he suspected that some unknown miscreants might have killed his wife and buried her in the hole.
5. It appears from the materials on record that upon receipt of information about the incident on 13.07.2017, G.D. Entry No.296 was made in the Lumding Police Station and thereafter, the police had arrived at the spot and exhumed the body of the victim from a pit in presence of an Executive Magistrate. The ejahar was lodged on the next day i.e. 14.07.2017 by the husband of the informant. Based on the ejahar dated 14.07.2017, Lumding P.S. Case No.120/2017 was registered and the police took up the matter for investigation. During the course of investigation, the I.O. had recorded the statement of the informant and other witnesses, sent the body for post-mortem and thereafter, submitted charge-sheet against four accused persons. Since the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the matter went up for trial.
6. There is no eye-witness in this case and the prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. In order to bring home the murder charge, the prosecution side had examined 10 witnesses.
7. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons had denied all the allegations brought against them. During trial, the defence side had also adduced ev
