Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT - PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM, Mir Alfaz Ali, JJ
BALU DHAN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM – Respondent
CRL.A(J)/77/2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR. N K BARUA, AMICUS CURIAE
For the Respondents: PP, ASSAM
The appellant's conviction was overturned due to failure in establishing proof beyond reasonable doubt based on contradictory witness testimonies regarding the murder and reliance on uncorroborated extra-judicial confessions.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Conviction for murder - Appellant convicted for murdering his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment - Circumstantial evidence relied upon including extra-judicial confession and “last seen together” theory - Prosecution failed to establish a chain of evidence as required - Extra-judicial confessions deemed unreliable and contradictory testimonies noted. (Paras 38-40)
(B) Criminal Law - Extra-Judicial Confession - Considered a weak piece of evidence unless corroborated by other consistent evidence - Requirements for conviction based on circumstantial evidence stated - Prosecution failed to satisfactorily link the accused to murder in view of contradictions in testimonies of witnesses. (Paras 23-39)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court based on an extra-judicial confession and circumstantial evidence linking him to his wife's murder, whose body was found buried under the latrine of their home after her disappearance.
Findings of Court:
The Sessions Court's reliance on the extra-judicial confession, considered weak without corroborative evidence, along with inconsistencies in witness testimonies, led to overturning the conviction. The State failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution successfully proved the murder charge against the appellant based on circumstantial evidence and witness accounts regarding the extra-judicial confession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the extra-judicial confession lacked corroboration and that the prosecution did not establish a consistent narrative free from contradictions among key witnesses, leading to reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt.
Result: Conviction overturned; appellant acquitted and ordered to be released from jail.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal standards for conviction must be upheld against reasonable doubt. (Para 1 , 15 , 34 , 40) |
| 2. the appellant is accused of murdering his wife. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7) |
| 3. details of witness testimonies and contradictions impacting evidence reliability. (Para 6 , 30) |
| 4. the evidence does not support the conviction due to inconsistencies. (Para 22 , 26 , 38) |
| 5. the court's findings on the lack of coherent evidence and the difficulties in establishing guilt. (Para 35) |
| 6. final decision to overturn the conviction and acquit the appellant. (Para 41) |
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (Oral)
Date : 22-02-2021 (Suman Shyam, J)
Heard Mr. N. K. Barua, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M. Phukan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State. None has appeared for the informant/ respondent No.2.
2. This appeal from Jail is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.04.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, in Sessions Case No.22/2016 convicting the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for committing murder of his wife Lakhi Dhan and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default clause.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused/appellant Balu Dhan had murdered his wife Lakhi Dhan and buried the dead body in the premises of his house under the old latrine. Since 12.11.2015 Lakhi Dhan was missing. After a frenetic search and on the basis of extra-judicial confession made by the appellant the dead body of the victim was eventually dug out by the police from place where it was buried.
4. On 15.11.2015, an ejahar was lodged with the Officer-in-charge of Tengakhat Police Station by Sri Bogapani Dhan (PW-1) reporting the incident to the police with a request to arrest the accused and investigate the matter. Based on the said ejahar, Tengakhat Police Station Case No.65/15 was registered under Section 302 /201 of the Indian Penal Code . The responsibility for carrying out investigation in the police case was entrusted upon S.I. Numal Borah. During the course of investigation the Investigating Officer (I.O.) had conducted inquest on the body and the dead body was also forwarded for autopsy examination. The I.O. had prepared a sketch map of the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of the witnesses and thereafter, submitted charge-sheet against the accused under Section 302 /201 of the IPC. Based on the charge-sheet submitted by the I.O. charge was framed against the appellant under Section 302 /201 IPC which was read over and explained to the accused but since the accused had pleaded not guilty, the matter was sent up for trial.
5. By the impugned judgment and order dated 24.04.2019, the learned Sessions Judge had convicted the appellant primarily by taking note of the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant admitting to the fact that he had killed his wife and also pointing out the place where the dead body was buried. The learned Sessions Judge was also of the view that the accused was last seen together with his wife i.e. the deceased immediately before her disappearance and therefore, the conviction was also partly based on “last seen together” theory which was held to be proved by the prosecution.
6. In order to establish the charge brought against the accused the prosecution side had examined as many as 11 witnesses. However, the defence side did not adduce any evidence.
7. PW-1 Bogapani Dhan is the informant in this case and in his deposition, the witness had stated that he knew the accused Balu Dhan. The house of the accused is situated in front of his house and there is a road between their houses. According to PW-1, deceased Lakhi Dhan is the wife of the accused. The incident took place during the Kali Puja of 2015 on which date, Kali Puja was celebrated in front of the house of Balu Dhan but his wife Lakhi Dhan was not seen in the Puja Mandap. On the next day also t
