GAHC010177712022

2026:GAU-AS:6321-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : CRL.A(J)/96/2022 MODON URANG S/O. LT. RAMESWAR URANG, R/O. LEKAI THAKURTHAN, P.S. DIBRUGARH, DIST. DIBRUGARH VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY PP, ASSAM 2:SRI BIJEN URANG S/O LATE BISHA URANG R/O- LAKAI GAON MALEMARI PATH PS-DIBRUGARH DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 78600 Advocates for the appellant : Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, Sr.Adv.

Mr. I. U. Choudhury, Adv.

Mr. U. Choudhury, Legal Aid Counsel Advocate for the respondents : Ms. B. Bhuyan, Sr. Adv. & A.PP :::BEFORE:::

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR Date on which judgment is reserved : 06.05.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 08.05.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : N/A operative part of the judgment ?

Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced?

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

(M. Zothankhuma, J)

1. Heard Mr. H. R. A. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the appellant, assisted by Mr. I. U. Choudhury, learned counsel and Mr. U. Choudhury, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel and Addl. PP, Assam, assisted by Ms. R. Das, learned counsel.

2. This appeal has put to challenge the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC for having killed his wife, who had eloped. The appellant has been convicted by the impugned Judgment dated 01.08.2022 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Sessions Case No.168/2017 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

3. The appellant's counsel submits that the only eye witness to the crime in question is PW-5, who is an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police at Milan Nagar Outpost, Dibrugarh Police Station. He submits that though the alleged incident took place in a tea garden, where bonus was being paid to the workers and a nearby market had been set up in the area, the charge-sheet has not listed any private/independent person to be a prosecution witness. Instead PW-5, who is a policeman, has been made an eye witness to the crime. He submits that in the absence of any private/independent witness, the evidence of PW-5 cannot be the sole ground for convicting the appellant.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as the dao that has been seized by the police, which was the weapon used for the crime, had not been sent to the FSL for examination, the same was fatal to the prosecution case. He also submits that though PW-2 had stated that he had seen the appellant with a blood stained dao, which PW-2 had asked the appellant to drop, there was no proof that the said dao was the weapon used by the appellant to kill his wife.

5. The learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence of PW-2 shows that he did not give any prior statement to the police under section 161 Cr.PC and as such, the appellant was not given the chance to defend himself against the testimony of pw-2. He also submits that though the charge-sheet submitted in this case had listed 12 Prosecution Witnesses, who were to prove the case against the appellant, only 7 Prosecution Witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, thereby giving rise to an inference that the prosecution was hiding certain facts, which could have proved the innocence of the appellant. The appellant's counsel further submits that PW-5, who is a policeman, is a chance witness and the evidence of a chance witness cannot be relied upon without proper scrutiny. He accordingly submits that the prosecution not having been able to prove the guilt of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and as all the procedures required to be followed had not been followed, the impugned judgment should be set aside, as the same caused prejudice to the appellant.

6. On the other hand, the learned Addl. PP submits t