SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 500

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.
RUMI BORA DUTTA - Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM - Respondent
PROBAL DUTTA - Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No 737 of 2006 with Criminal Appeal No 738 of 2006
Decided on: 24-5-2013

IMPORTANT POINT
In case based on circumstantial evidence, false answer to a circumstance by the accused would be treated as "missing link".

Headnote:(a) Criminal Trial - Circumstantial evidence - All circumstances must be established and point to the guilt of the accused - Principles restated. (Paras 11 to 13)

        AIR 1952 SC 343; (1984) 4 SCC 116; (1996) 10 SCC 193 - Relied upon

        (b) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Recovery at the disclosure by accused - Doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events - Recovery following information given by accused confirms truthfulness of the information - Such information is admissible as evidence - Recovered articles having direct nexus with injuries found in the post-mortem report. (Para 16 to 20)

        (2000) 6 SCC 269; AIR 1947 PC 67; (2009) 11 SCC 225; (2010) 2 SCC 583; AIR 2011 SC 1863; AIR 2010 SC 2352 - Relied upon

        (c) Criminal Trial - Circumstantial evidence - False answer by accused to a circumstance - Would be treated as "missing link". (Para 21)

        (2000) 1 SCC 471 - Relied upon

        (d) Criminal Trial - Circumstantial evidence - Prosecution establishing complete chain of circumstances - Guilt of appellants proved beyond reasonable doubt - No infirmity in conviction and sentence. (Paras 23 and 24)

       Facts of the case:

        The appellants are wife and nephew of the deceased, all living in the same house.

        The appellants having illicit relations eliminated the deceased by strangulating and stabbing him.

        Both were convicted and sentenced by the trial court u/s 302 r/w 34, IPC.

        The High Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence.

       Finding of the Court:

        Impugned judgment and order are justified.

       Result : Appeals dismissed,

       

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.:-The factual score from which the present appeals arise has a sad and sordid story to tell reflecting the morbid obsession of the appellants with lust, abandonment of kernel of all human virtues and deep addiction with carnal desires. The deceased- husband, as expected, trusted the wife, Ruma Bora, and such an emotional trust has always been regarded as a great complement to any person. The other appellant, Probal, nephew of the deceased, was shown affection, a beautiful and sacred sentiment in a human being and also charity, the wonder of life without a ceremony, and kept at his home to prosecute his studies but, an obnoxious one, the infidelity of the wife with incurable sensuality and the monstrous ingratitude of the nephew, brought his tragic end. The falsehood of both the wife and the nephew culminated in the murder of the deceased, an Upper Division Clerk in the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Schools, Jorhat. The wife, a teacher in the school and the nephew, a student of Class-X, ultimately faced trial and being convicted by the learned trial Judge under Section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2002 before the Gauhati High Court which affirmed the conviction and the sentence. Hence, they have preferred the present appeals by special leave.

2. Shorn of details, the prosecution case is that on 4.6.1997 about 4.30 a.m. the police came to know that at 1.30 a.m. one Naren Dutta had been hospitalized on being hit by a bullet by the unknown miscreants. The police rushed to the hospital and found him dead. A general diary entry was made on 4.6.1997 and thereafter the police moved to the house of the deceased at Gajpuria Village. When the Investigating Officer reached the house, wife of the deceased lodged a written FIR, Ext.-2, stating that about 1.30 a.m. three unknown persons with their faces covered with black clothes had entered into the house, tied her up with the point of pistol and while one guarded her, two others entered their bed room and after 15 minutes they came out. As alleged, they lifted their child, Pranjal, and took him out. When she shouted, her nephew Probal Dutta, who was inside the house, came out and both of them looked for the child first and found him from the road. Thereafter, they proceeded to the bed room where the deceased was lying on the bed and a rope had been fastened around his neck. They moved him to the civil hospital where he was declared brought dead by the doctor. The Investigating Officer on enquiry found the story narrated, vide Ext. P-2, to be absolutely false, concocted and incredible and, accordingly, arrested the accused persons. In course of investigation Probal Dutta confessed before the police that he along with his aunt had strangulated the deceased and he had stabbed him on his chest. Similar confession was made by the wife. Thereafter a case under Section 302/34 IPC was registered and during investigation Probal Dutta, in pursuance of his disclosure statement, Ext.-6, led to discovery of the two pieces of handle of the skipping rope and the knife hidden inside the house. The wife led to the discovery of the skipping rope that was used for strangulation. Thereafter, the investigating agency got the post mortem done, recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completing all the formalities placed the charge-sheet before the competent court which, in turn, committed the matter to the court of Session.

3. The accused persons abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charge, examined nine witnesses and two witnesses were examined as court witnesses. The defence chose not to adduce any evidence.

5. The trial court, appreciating the material brought on record, cam





































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top