Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 310 (GAU)

Dhruba Nath v. State of Assam

2008-04-29

AFTAB H.SAIKIA, H.BARUAH

body2008
JUDGMENT Aftab H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. K. Agarwal who has been appointed as Amicus Curiae to defend the appellants as Mr. S.I. Rahman the engaged learned Counsel of the appellants is reported to have left the profession to join in the Assam Judicial Service and no counsel till date has been appointed by the appellants to defend their case. In appointing Mr. Agarwal as Amicus Curiae this Court has also kept in mind the long pendency of this criminal appeal which has been awaiting for final disposal since 2001. 2. Also heard Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned P.P., representing the State of Assam. 3. It is a shocking case of ghastly triple murder committed in a cruel and diabolic manner wherein the precious lives of three innocent young women have been taken away in the course of alleged commission of robbery by the appellants in the absence of male member, husband, father and master of the victim were one Mina Singh, aged about 38 years, who being the wife of the informant PW-3 Shri Jainath Singh, Miss Anita Singh, aged about 20 years and maid servant Jayanti aged about 14 years respectively. 4. It is alleged inter alia in the FIR so lodged by PW-3, Shri Joinath Singh on 2.9.1995 with the Officer In charge, Mahabhairab Police Outpost under the Jurisdiction of Tezpur police station that at about 11.30 a.m. on that day i.e. 2.9.1995 the accused namely (1) Hari Mura who was shown to be absconder, (2) Dhruba Nath (3) Pradip Rajbanshi and (4) Ajit Rabha (Nos. 2 to 4 are the appellants before us) entered into his house and looted the household articles from his house and in the process of looting, they assaulted his wife Mina Singh (since deceased), his college going daughter Anita Singh and maid servant Jayanti with sharp weapon. Smt. Jayanit died on the spot and his wife and daughter died on the way to hospital. 5. On the basis of this information, investigation ensued Police arrested all these three accused appellants herein and submitted charge sheet against them under Sections 394/302/34, IPC indicating Hari Mura, the another accused as absconder. 6. The case, being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions was committed to the Court of Sessions wherein the charge under the abovementioned Sections had been framed against all these three appellants who pleaded not guilty and the trial commenced. 7. 6. The case, being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions was committed to the Court of Sessions wherein the charge under the abovementioned Sections had been framed against all these three appellants who pleaded not guilty and the trial commenced. 7. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses including 5 official witnesses namely, (1) PW-13, Dr. Atul Ch. Saikia who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Smt. Mina Singh and Smt. Anita Singh, (2) P W-14 Dr. Ramendra Nath who performed postmortem on the dead body of Jayanti, (3) PW-15 Lalchand Dey who held Test Identification Parade (for short, 'the TIP') of all the three appellants, (4) PW-16 Nabo Komal Bora who recorded the confessional statements of all the three appellants as well as (5) PW-18, Iyajul Rahman, Investigating Officer (for short, 'the 10') and (6) PW-19 Indeswar Bora, S.I. who filed charge sheet against all the three appellants showing Hari Mura, the other accused as an absconder. 8. The learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Sonitpur at Tezpur on proper appreciation of the materials evidence on record of all these witnesses examined by the prosecution including the documents so produced as exhibits as well as upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, found all the three accused-appellants guilty of committing an offence under Section 394, IPC in the house of PW-3 and killing of all the three female members of his family and accordingly, by judgment and order dated 27.11.2001 rendered in Sessions Case No. 40/98 convicted all the three appellants under Sections 394/302/34, IPC and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life (for short, 'the R.I.') and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo another R.I. for six months under Sections 302/34, IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 5 years under Section 394, IPC. Hence this appeal from jail. 9. Mr. 3000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo another R.I. for six months under Sections 302/34, IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 5 years under Section 394, IPC. Hence this appeal from jail. 9. Mr. Agarwal, learned Amicus Curiae, assailing the impugned conviction and sentence, has vehemently argued that although the conviction and sentence of all the appellants have been basically based on the testimony of PW-4 Tarani Karmakar, PW-5 Sahadeb Chetri, PW-6 Vikram Singh, PW 7 Amar Sahu, PW 8 Bishnu Panika, PW 11 Salami Mura and PW 12 Rina Khaira as well as the confessional statements so made by all these three appellants recorded by PW 16 Nabo Komal Bora, the evidence of those prosecution witnesses are contradictory, inconsistent, uncorroborated and cannot be relied upon for the impugned conviction and so far as the confessional statements of all the appellants are concerned, the same cannot be approved under the law as because all these three appellants had retracted from their earlier confession. According to him, the set of evidence so examined by the prosecution as mentioned above, and the confessional statements so recorded had failed to bring home charges against the appellants to attract the impugned conviction and sentence. His case is that there were glaring anomalies and illegalities to be seen in the investigation of the case even in holding the T.I.P. His further case is that PW 6 Vikram Singh who has been examined as the son of the informant of PW 3 Jainath Singh and Siimati Mina Singh (since deceased) and brother of Anita Singh (since deceased), and who in his deposition, clearly mentioned that while he along with his friends Vibek and Binod on returning from school, the school being over at 12 noon, being a Saturday, reached home at about 12.30 p.m. having pushed the calling bell which was not working, he called out his mother but without reply and at that time four persons came out from inside their house and threatened him and asked him to leave the place, was not requisitioned as identifying witness in the TIP. against those three accused/appellants who were claimed to have been seen by him (PW 6). against those three accused/appellants who were claimed to have been seen by him (PW 6). Relying upon the testimony of those abovementioned PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-11 and PW-12, he has submitted that the deposition of these witnesses are basically lack trustworthiness and thereby do not inspire the confidence so as to bring home the charges against the accused-appellants herein. Drawing our attention to the confessional statements of these 3 appellants, he has categorically contended that all the so-called confessional statements had been procured under threat and coercion and the same cannot be accepted as voluntary one at all. Besides they had retracted from their earlier confession and hence the same have no evidentiary value. 10. Per contra, Mr. Mazumdar, learned P.P., Assam has confronted the submissions of the learned Amicus Curiae and strenuously submitted that all these witnesses by their consistent, corroborative and clear evidence proved the prosecution case beyond all reasonable doubt and by no stretch of imagination the testimony of all these prosecution witnesses can be said to be unreliable and unbelievable. Moreso, there is no legal lacuna in recording the confessional statement made by all these appellants and they in chorus admitted their guilt of taking three innocent precious lives of the female members of the family of PW-3, the informant. As regards the retracted confession of the appellants, he has submitted that the same has come at a belated stage and nowhere in the confessional statements of the appellants which were recorded by PW-16, it was mentioned that they had been tortured, harassed and coerced by the police. Under such circumstances, according to him, the prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt and the appellants did not deserve any leniency in their conviction and sentence rather according to him it is fit case for handing down the death sentence. Taking into account the nature, seriousness and gravity of the offence committed by them, the instant case was one of the rarest of the rare cases warranting the maximum punishment prescribed by the law. 11. We have given our thoughtful and anxious consideration to the extensive and lengthy arguments so placed on record by the learned Amicus Curiae as well as the learned P.P., representing the State of Assam. 12. 11. We have given our thoughtful and anxious consideration to the extensive and lengthy arguments so placed on record by the learned Amicus Curiae as well as the learned P.P., representing the State of Assam. 12. We have scrupulous evaluated and meticulously appreciated the testimony of the witnesses so examined by the prosecution more particularly, the PW 4, PW 5, PW 6, PW 7, PW 8, PW 11 and PW 12 as well as the confessional statements made by all these three appellants so recorded by PW 16 Shri Nabo Komal Bora. 13. Before delving upon the critical analysis of the testimony of the witnesses, it would be prudent and expedient to notice the injuries inflicted on the body of the three deceased namely, Smt. Mina Singh, Miss Anita Singh and Jayanti. 14. PW 13 Dr. Atul Saikia in his medical evidence who performed the postmortem on the dead body of Mina Singh and Anita Singh indicated clearly the injuries inflicted on the persons of the dead bodies of the two females. He found the following injuries on the person of the deceased Mina Singh are as follows; Injuries inflicted upon Mina Singh 1. Sharp traverse cut on left side of the neck : 3" into skin deep. 2. Sharp penetrating injury on right side of the chest just below the bowel : 2" x 1/2 x bony deep on dissection, pleura on the right side rupture, right lung rupture. And thorax cage is full of blood. Heart is empty. According to Doctor all the injuries were and mortem in nature. The cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of injuries sustained. Injuries were sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature as due to profuse bleeding. Injuries inflicted upon Anita Singh 1. Sharp penetrating on the chest wall. Just right to the enterior 2" x 5" deep. 2. On dissection of pleura left side ruptured, right vertebra rupture. Thoracic cage is full of blood. According to the Doctor, in his opinion, all the injuries were anti-mortem in nature and the cause of death was due to haemorrhage of shock as a result of injuries sustained. 15. Dr. Just right to the enterior 2" x 5" deep. 2. On dissection of pleura left side ruptured, right vertebra rupture. Thoracic cage is full of blood. According to the Doctor, in his opinion, all the injuries were anti-mortem in nature and the cause of death was due to haemorrhage of shock as a result of injuries sustained. 15. Dr. Ramendra Nath, PW-14 who conducted postmortem on the dead body of Jayanti found the following injuries : Injuries : Sharp cut wound entering from osterior border of the left sternomastoid muscle 6 c.m. below the left maspoit process to right clavicular joint : 13 c.m. x 5 c.m. x 2.5 c.m. The cut injury severed muscle skin and Jegular and canodid vessel of the left side of the neck. 2. Sharp cut injury on the right side of the neck extending from 2 c.m. below the angle of the right mandeble to anteriory : 5 cm. x 1 cm. x l cm. The cut injury involves skin and substinuous tissues. The doctor opined that cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of profuse bleeding from the cut vessels of the left side of the neck. 16. In the backdrop of such medical evidence, now let us examined thoroughly the deposition of all these witnesses. 17. PW 4, Tarini Karmakar, in his evidence, stated that he, 2.9.1995 at about 12 a.m. after returning from his work, was cutting betel nut at his house, and at that time his co-villagers Gubidhar Gowala told him that 3 persons thrown a sharee and went towards the garden. Thereafter he went in a bicycle and on the way he asked some persons whether 3 persons proceeded on that way or not and one woman told him that 3 persons went towards the garden. He followed that 3 (three) persons and found that they were washing their hands and legs in a drain at No. 3 Section of Nurbari Tea Estate. He deposed that he saw a knife in the hand of one of them and after seeing the knife he did not go near them. He stated that when he moved a little he met Sahadeb (PW-5) and he gave his bicycle to Sahadeb and asked him to call people to apprehend the thieves. In the meantime those thieves entered into the sugar-cane field on the tea garden. He stated that when he moved a little he met Sahadeb (PW-5) and he gave his bicycle to Sahadeb and asked him to call people to apprehend the thieves. In the meantime those thieves entered into the sugar-cane field on the tea garden. He stated that thereafter he, Sahadeb (PW-5), Amar (PW 7) and Bishnu Panika (PW 8) entered into the sugar-cane field and met one of the 2 persons who was wearing a jeans pant with a dagger in his hand. He stated that Bishnu (PW-8) gave a blow with a bomboo on the person and snatched away the dagger from him and handed the dagger to Amar. He also evidenced that all of them caught him and when attempted to assault him he confessed before them that he along with 3 others committed dacoity in the house of Jainath Singh. He further stated that at that time police from Mahabhairab O.P. arrived there and they handed over the persons whom they apprehended to the police and he was the accused Dhruba Nath and the dagger was also handed over to the police by Amar (PW-7). He stated that police seized the dagger by Ext. 3 and Ext. 3(1) in his signature and material Ext. 2 is the seized dagger which was recovered from Dhruba Nath. He further deposed that after 40-50 minutes they got the other persons inside the sugar-cane field and with the help of police and villagers they apprehended him whose name was Pradip Rajbanshi. It was further stated that thereafter when he went to the house of Jainath Singh he found 3 (three) dead bodies who were wife, daughter and maid servant of Jainath. He also stated that he found the household articles and money were scattered here and there in the house. His statement was recorded under 164, Cr PC by the Magistrate (PW 10) and Ext. 4 is his statement and Ext. 4(1) is his signature. He further stated that along with Magistrate he went to the jail and among the people lined up there he identified two persons whom they caught inside the sugar-cane field who were Dhruba Nath and Pradip Rajbanshi. 18. Another witness Shri Sahadeb Chetry (PW 5) in his evidence asserted that on 2.9.1995 at about 12.30/1 p.m. when he was returning from his duty he heard the alarm "thief "thief. 18. Another witness Shri Sahadeb Chetry (PW 5) in his evidence asserted that on 2.9.1995 at about 12.30/1 p.m. when he was returning from his duty he heard the alarm "thief "thief. After hearing the alarm he rushed to his house and came out with a lathi and went to the Tea Garden, he saw 3 persons running in the Section 5 of the garden. He met Tarini Karmakar PW 4 there who gave his bicycle to him and asked him to call people. He with that bicycle informed the villagers and thereafter he, PW-4, PW-7 and PW-8 found one person with a dagger in the sugar-cane field. He stated that when Bishnu attempted to apprehend, him that person tried to assault Bishnu with dagger and then Bishnu gave him a blow with the lathi and snatched away the dagger from him. Later on Bishnu gave the dagger to Amar. He also told that the said person told him that he along with 3 others committed dacoity in the house of Jainath Singh and mentioned his name as Dhruba Nath. In the meantime police came there and they handed over Dhruba Nath with the dagger to the police. Police seized the dagger by Ext. 3 and Ext. 3 (2) was his signature and material Ext. 2 was the dagger seized by the police. PW 5 in his evidence stated that thereafter they apprehended another person whose name was Pradip Rajbanshi and they handed him over to the police. It was stated by him that the accused Pradip and Dhruba told before them that accused Hari Mura and Ajit Rabha were with them at the time of committing dacoity. This witness further stated that when he went to the house of Jainath Singh he saw the dead body of wife, daughter and maid servant of Jainath Singh. He also saw the injuries on the dead bodies and found the household articles scattered there. It was stated by him that he gave statement before the Magistrate in the Court and Ext. 5 was his statement recorded under Section 164, CrPC and Ext. 5(1) was his signature. 19. Amar Sahu who was examined as PW 7 in his evidence disclosed that on 2.9.1995 at about 12/12.30 p.m., he was working in the playing ground of Nurbari Tea Estate as there was proposed to be held a match in the evening. 5 was his statement recorded under Section 164, CrPC and Ext. 5(1) was his signature. 19. Amar Sahu who was examined as PW 7 in his evidence disclosed that on 2.9.1995 at about 12/12.30 p.m., he was working in the playing ground of Nurbari Tea Estate as there was proposed to be held a match in the evening. At that time in the No. 5 line of Nurbari T.E. he heard a sound "thief, then he, Bishnu (PW-8), Sahadeb (PW 5) and Tarani (PW 4) rushed to the sugar-cane field which was situated by the side of Nurbari T.E. There he found the thief with a knife. When the thief attempted to assault Bishnu with the knife, Bishnu gave him a blow with a lathi and snatched away the knife from him and gave it to PW 7. Thereafter all of them caught the thief and he confessed before them that he, Pradip, Ajit and Hari committed murder in the house of Jainath Singh and he identified himself as Dhruba Nath. It was stated by him that in the meantime police arrived there and they handed over Dhruba Nath along with the dagger to the police and seized the dagger. Ext. 3 was the seizure list and Ext. 3(3) was his signature as seizure witness. It was also mentioned by him that Sahadeb (PW 5), Tarani (PW-4) and Bishnu (PW-8) put the signature in the seizure list and material Ext. 2 is the dagger seized by police. After a while they arrested another thief who was Pradip Rajbanshi. He told that he gave his statement under Section 164, Cr PC before the Magistrate in the Court and Ext. 6 was his statement and Ext. 6(1) was his signature. 20. The prosecution examined Shri Bishnu Panika as PW-8. This witness in his evidence deposed that on 2.9.1995 while he was in duty in Nurbari T.E. he heard an alarm "thief", "thief. When he came out from the factory he was told by Sahadeb (PW 5) that there was thief arrived in the area and he went in the same bicycle with Sahadeb and that time he saw that 3 persons were running towards the garden. When he came out from the factory he was told by Sahadeb (PW 5) that there was thief arrived in the area and he went in the same bicycle with Sahadeb and that time he saw that 3 persons were running towards the garden. When he and Sahadeb reached near them they found the 3 (three) persons entered into the sugar cane field which was situated near the No. 5 line of Nurbari T.E. It was narrated by him that Amar Sahu and Tarani Karmakar were following them and he, Sahadeb, Amar and Tarani entered into the sugar cane field and found a person with a dagger inside the sugar - can field and when the person attempted to assault him with the dagger he gave a blow with a lathi on him and thereafter snatched away the dagger from him and gave the same to Amar Sahu. It was also stated by him that persons caught by him told his name was Dhruba Nath. He also stated that at that time police arrived there and he and Amar gave the dagger to police and Ext. 3(4) was his signature in the seizure list and material Ext. 2 was the dagger which was snatched away by him on the day of occurrence. He further stated that when they caught Dhruba Nath he confessed before them that he along with Pradip Rajbanshi, Ajit Rabha and Hari Mura came there after committing murder in the house of Jainath Singh. After a while another person was caught who was Pradip Rajbanshi. He stated that later on he came to know that the wife, daughter and maidservant of Jainath Singh was murdered. He gave statement before the Magistrate and Ext. 7 was his statement and Ext. 7(1) was his signature. 21. Shri Jainath Singh, PW 3 was the informant in this case. He in his evidence, stated that on 2.9.1995 he was working as contractor in Garrison Engineer at Solmara. At about 2.30 p.m. he came to know that something serious was happened in his house and thereafter he and his elder brother Haridas Singh who was working with him at the side came to his house and found many people gathered in his house. When he arrived at his resident he was told by the people gathered there that his wife, daughter and his maid servant were killed. Thereafter he became unconscious. When he arrived at his resident he was told by the people gathered there that his wife, daughter and his maid servant were killed. Thereafter he became unconscious. When he returned back his sense he found that the dead bodies were already brought from the hospital and kept in his original house which was situated near the hospital. He deposed that before his arrival in the house police came there. He found the household articles were scattered here and there. On the same day he came to know that the persons involved in the killing of his wife, daughter and maidservant were arrested from the sugar-cane field of Nurbari T.E. and the persons arrested were Dhruba Nath and Pradip Rajbanshi. He further stated that accused Hari Mura, Dhruba Nath, Pradip Rajbanshi and Ajit Rabha were involved in the murder. He testified that accused Hari Mura was a rickshaw puller and he used to take his daughter to her college. On the same day he lodged a written FIR and Ext. 2 was the FIR and Ext. 2(1) and 2(2) were his signatures. 22. PW-11 Smt. Salami Mura in her evidence stated that about 3 years back at day time 3 persons came with the accused Hari Mura to her house in search of liquor. They all 4 took liquor in her house and thereafter they left the house. Later on she came to know that near her house Bihari persons were killed and the culprits were arrested. Later on she identified the persons in the jail before the Magistrate in TIP who came to her house on the day of occurrence to take liquor. She in her evidence stated that inside the jail among many people those three persons were present and she identified all the 3 persons. She in her evidence stated that she gave her statement under Section 164 Cr PC before the Court. 23. Smti. RinaKhaira (PW 12) inher evidence told that about 3 years back at daytime accused Hari Mura along with 3 persons came to her house in search of liquor but when she told them that there was no liquor they left her house. Later on she came to know that a murder was committed in the house of PW 3. She identified that 3 accused persons in the Jail before the Magistrate. 24. Later on she came to know that a murder was committed in the house of PW 3. She identified that 3 accused persons in the Jail before the Magistrate. 24. The evidence of PW 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are corroborated by PW-18 who is the I.O. of this case to the effect that after being apprehended by PW 4, 5, 7 and 8 and the villagers accused Dhruba and Pradip Rajbanshi were handed over to the police along with the seized dagger. 25. PW 18 Md. lyajul Rahman (I.O.) evidenced that on 2.9.1995 he was the in-charge of Mahabhairab O.P. and on that day at about 12.40 p.m. while he was doing his official duty at Tezpur police station he received a telephonic call from ASI Bhuban Tamuli of Mahabhairab O.P. informing him that ASI Bhuban Tamuli was informed over telephone by Vikram Singh (PW 6) that a dacoity was committed in his house and his mother and sister were assaulted by the dacoits. ASI Bhuban Tamuli informed PW 8 that he made preparation to go to the place of occurrence and asked for vehicle and Escort party from Tezpur police station as Mahabhairab O.P., fell under jurisdiction of Tezpur police station. In the meantime ASI Bhuban Tamuli made GD. Entry which was GD. Entry No. 21 dated 2.9.1995. PW-18 immediately informed O/C Tezpur police station and after getting a vehicle and escort party he went straight from the police station to the place of occurrence. There PW-18 found Smt. Mina Singh lying in a injured state and Anita Singh lying unconscious. He immediately sent both the injured with escort to Kanaklata Civil Hospital After searched he found the dead body of Smt Jayanti in the backyard under the bamboo grove. At the place of occurrence P W 18 came to know that the accused persons were hiding inside the Nurbari T.E. and he immediately went there and surrounded the T.E. This witness, in his evidence stated that he and his police party with the help of villagers arrested Dhruba Nath with a knife in his hand and he seized the knife in presence of the witnesses and Ext. 3 was the seizure list and Ext. 3(4) was his signature. He further stated that he apprehended Pradip Rajbanshi from sugarcane field. 3 was the seizure list and Ext. 3(4) was his signature. He further stated that he apprehended Pradip Rajbanshi from sugarcane field. It was mentioned by him that on interrogation accused Dhruba Nath and Pradip Rajbanshi stated before him that the accused Ajit Rabha and Hari Mura were also with them. On the same day at night he arrested Ajit Rabha from his house but he was unable to arrest Hari Mura as he absconded. On 4.9.1995 all the 3 accused were produced before the Court and for further interrogation took them in police custody. In the meantime he received the FIR from Jainath Singh. Ext. 2 was the written FIR and Ext (2)(1) was his signature with note. On 11.9.1995 the accused were again produced before the Court with prayer for recording their confessional statement and all the 3 accused persons gave their confessional statement before the Court. The T.I.P. was held on 26.9.1995 where the accused were identified by the witnesses. In his evidence he stated that the inquest was hold on all the dead bodies. Ext. 19 was the inquest of Smt. Jayanti and Ext. 19(1) was his signature. Ext. 20 was the dead body challan and Ext. 20(1) was his signature. He prepared sketch map of the place of occurrence. He seized one blood stained light green coloured maxi which was worn by Smt. Mina Singh by Ext, 1 and Ext. 1(3) was his signature. Ext. 21 was the general diary and Ext. 21(1) was the GD. Entry at 12.40 p.m. He stated that he gave a prayer for recording statement under Section 164 Cr PC of the witnesses Tarani Karmakar (PW-4), PW 5, PW-7, PW-8, PW-11 and PW 12 and accordingly their statement were recorded in the Court. He sent the blood stained knife and blood stained maxi seized by Ext. 1 and 3 to the Forensic Laboratory and received the report (Ext. 22) from the Forensic Laboratory wherein it was reported that- "Examination gave positive test for human blood but there result of grouping could not be given due to unconclusive result on the test." 26. He sent the blood stained knife and blood stained maxi seized by Ext. 1 and 3 to the Forensic Laboratory and received the report (Ext. 22) from the Forensic Laboratory wherein it was reported that- "Examination gave positive test for human blood but there result of grouping could not be given due to unconclusive result on the test." 26. Having closely appreciated the evidence of P W 6 it is found that after closing down of his school at about 12 a.m. he returned to his house with his friends and had guava fruit from their garden and thereafter he went to his house to his bag and he rang calling bell but as the bell was not working he started shouting "Ma" "Ma" and at that time 4 persons among whom the accused Hari Mura was present who was known to him prior to the occurrence came out threatened him and asked him to leave the place. He, suspecting something happening in the house, went to his near by paternal uncle's house and from there he informed Mahabhairab O.P. about the occurrence. 27. A close perusal of the evidence of PW-4, PW-5, PW-7 and PW-8 would candidly indicate that on the day of occurrence at about 12.30/1 p.m. they came to know that there were thieves in their village and accordingly they chased them and found 2 persons inside the sugarcane field one of whom was armed with a dagger and whom they apprehended and handed over to the police who arrived there. They apprehended Dhruba Nath and Pradip Rajbanshi believing them to be the thieves. Then both the accused confessed before them that they committed dacoity and murder of the wife, daughter and maid servant of Jainath Singh. Thereafter they went to the house of PW-3 and found the dead bodies there. Before the arrest of the accused persons they had no knowledge about the dacoity and the murder of the three innocent ladies in the house of PW 3. All these 4 witnesses were cross-examined in length but nothing have been elicited to discard the evidence of PW-4, PW-5, PW-7 and PW-8. Before the arrest of the accused persons they had no knowledge about the dacoity and the murder of the three innocent ladies in the house of PW 3. All these 4 witnesses were cross-examined in length but nothing have been elicited to discard the evidence of PW-4, PW-5, PW-7 and PW-8. From the evidence of PW-4, PW-5 and PW-8 it is found that the apprehended accused Dhruba Nath and Pradip Rajbanshi made extra judicial confession before them that they i.e. Dhruba Nath and Pradip Rajbanshi along with Hari Mura and Ajit Rabha committed dacoity and murder in the house of PW 3. 28. PW-16 Sri Nabo Komal Bora, Addl. CJM, Tinsukia recorded confessional statements of the accused Dhruba Nath, Pradip Rajbanshi and Ajit Rabha on 11.9.1995 at Tezpur while he was working as Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Tezpur. According to him on 11.9.1995 at about 11.30 a.m. he received the case record G.R. No. 1235/95 from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tezpur for recording confessional statements of the accused Dhruba Nath Pradip Rajbanshi and Ajit Rabha. He in his evidence stated that on 11 -30 a.m. when the accused persons were brought before him he cautioned them and told them that they were not bound to make confession and if they made any confession it would be used against them as evidence in the trial. Thereafter when the accused persons intended to make confessional statements he gave them 5 (five) hours time for reflection and thereafter he recorded their confessional statements. Ext. 10 was the GR. case recorded and Ext. 10(6) was the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tezpur dated 11.9.1995. Ext. 12 was the prescribed form of recording confessional statement of the accused Pradip Rajbanshi. Ext. 12(1) was the searching questions and answers and Ext. 12(2) was the confessional statement of Pradip Rajbanshi. Ext. 12(3), 12(4) and 12(5) were the thumb impression of Pradip Rajbanshi and Ext. 12(6), 12(7), 12(8), 12(9) and 12(11) were the signatures of PW-16 Ext. 13 was the prescribed form of confessional statement of accused Ajit Rabha. Ext. 13(1) were the searching questions and answers and Ext. 13(2) was the confessional statement of the accused Ajit Rabha. Ext. 13(3), 13(4) and 13(5) were thumb impression of Ajit Rabha and Ext. 13(5), 13(6), 13(7), 13(8) and 13(9) were the signatures of PW-16. Ext. 14 was the prescribed form of confessional statement of the accused Dhruba Nath. Ext. 13(1) were the searching questions and answers and Ext. 13(2) was the confessional statement of the accused Ajit Rabha. Ext. 13(3), 13(4) and 13(5) were thumb impression of Ajit Rabha and Ext. 13(5), 13(6), 13(7), 13(8) and 13(9) were the signatures of PW-16. Ext. 14 was the prescribed form of confessional statement of the accused Dhruba Nath. Ext. 14(1) were the searching questions and answers and Ext. 14(2) was the confessional statement of the accused Dhruba Nath. Ext. 14(3), 14(4), 14(5) were the thumb impression of the accused Dhruba Nath and Ext. 14(6), 14(7), 14(8), 14(9) and 14(10) were his signatures. Ext. 10(7) was the order in Ext. 10 written by him after recording confessional statement of the accused persons. 29. We have scrupulously gone through the Ext. 12, 13 and 14 which are the confessional statements of the accused Pradip Rajbanshi, Ajit Rabha and Dhruba Nath respectively. In Ext. 12 accused Pradip Rajbanshi confessed that on 2.9.1995 it was Saturday and he was in his house. At about 9 a.m. his sakhi (friend) came to his house and asked him to go to have liquor. Thereafter he and his friend went to the house of garden labour at Hari-gaon and there they consumed liquor and in that house they met Hari Mura and Ajit. He stated that Hari was known to him prior to the occurrence and he was a riksha-puller. Thereafter on request of Hari they all 4 went to another house and there also they consumed liquor. Thereafter Hari request them to go to the house where Hari working and accordingly all of them went with Hari to the house which is situated at Hari Gaon. Hari opened the gate of the house and they all four (4) entered into the premises of the house. Hari entered into the house and called on them. He stated that they were told by Hari that occasionally he worked in that house as daily labour. He and Dhruba waited in the outer room and Hari started noising inside the house. He stated that inside the house there was one middle aged lady and two girls among whom one was the maid servant. He stated that they were told by Hari that occasionally he worked in that house as daily labour. He and Dhruba waited in the outer room and Hari started noising inside the house. He stated that inside the house there was one middle aged lady and two girls among whom one was the maid servant. Pradip Rajbanshi stated that when the accused Hari made noise inside the house the middle aged lady came out and at that time accused Hari told them that "Don't allow her to go "catch." Accordingly, he and Dhruba caught the middle aged lady and Hari gave him a knife and asked him to killed her. At that time when the daughter of the lady came out they caught her also. He confessed that he caught the lady and the accused Dhruba caught the girl. It was told by him that as being told by Hari he cut the neck of the lady with the knife given by Han and stabbed on the abdomen of the lady with a knife which was with him. He stated : that most probably Hari stabbed in the neck of the lady but he did not remember. The lady fell down. Thereafter the accused Dhruba took the knife from him and inflicted injury on the girl who was caught by him. The girl also fell down there and the accused Ajit stabbed her on her abdomen. He also stated that the maid servant was killed by the accused Hari and Ajit outside the house and he heard her shriek. It was stated by him that after killing her accused Ajit and Hari fled away from there. At that time as two (2) school boys came there and he and Dhruba also fled away. Stay in his confession further stated that before the lady was assaulted she gave some money and two boxes to him and subsequently he gave the money and boxes to Dhruba. It was stated by him that he did not know where the money was thrown by the accused Dhruba. After the occurrence they fled away by jumping the boundary wall and when they were fleeing, on the way he and Dhruba were apprehended by the villagers at Parowa T.E. and at that time knife was still with the accused Dhruba. It was stated by him that he did not know where the money was thrown by the accused Dhruba. After the occurrence they fled away by jumping the boundary wall and when they were fleeing, on the way he and Dhruba were apprehended by the villagers at Parowa T.E. and at that time knife was still with the accused Dhruba. He stated that when they jumped over the wall they found the accused Hari who was waiting there took them towards the garden, but thereafter he did not know where Hari had gone. It is stated by him that after they were apprehended by the villagers police came and brought them to the police station and seized the knife from the possession of the accused Dhruba. He stated that he inflicted injury with the suri on the mother and the daughter. It was also stated by him that when he first touched the neck of the lady with the knife she gave one 10 rupees bundle and half bundle of 50 rupees note and two boxes containing coins. Thereafter they all killed the lady. He in his confession stated that he did not kill the maid servant. 30. Ext. 13 is the confessional statement of the accused Ajit Rabha and he in his confession discussed that on the previous evening of the day of occurrence accused Hari Mura met him and called him to his house. Accordingly on 2.9.1995 at about 9 a.m. he went to the house of Hari and with him he went to the house of a graden labour to have liquor. There they met Pradip and his friend Dhruba who was also a riksha-puller. He came to know the name of Dhruba from Pradip. Pradip was known to him. He stated that when he arrived in the house of Hari, he told by Hari that they would have to commit a dacoity in a house. After having liquor they went to another house and there Hari drank them liquor and thereafter they went out with Hari, Pradip and Dhruba were also with them and Hari told Pradip that they were going to commit a dacoity. He stated that the accused Hari brought two (2) knives from his house which were kept hide with them. Thereafter Hari climbed over the wall of the house and opened the gate as the house was surrounded by the brick wall. He stated that the accused Hari brought two (2) knives from his house which were kept hide with them. Thereafter Hari climbed over the wall of the house and opened the gate as the house was surrounded by the brick wall. Then Hari entered inside the house and he followed Hari and Dhruba and Pradip was waiting in the outside the room of the house. After entering into the house Hari demanded money from the lady and then the lady gave two (2) bundles of 10 rupees note and one bundle of 50 rupees note to Pradip. Then Pradip caught hold the lady and the accused Dhruba caught hold the girl and the accused Hari caught hold the maid servant and took her to the back side of the house and there he gave cut injury on her neck. He stated that before killing of the maid servant they all killed lady and her daughter with the knife. He stated that accused Hari first gave knife blow on the lady and thereafter they gave knife blow on her neck and the abdomen. He further confessed that the accused Hari Mura again assaulted the girl first with knife and thereafter they all 3 inflicted injury on her and both of them when fell down accused Dhruba again inflicted injury with knife on them. The accused Hari after assaulting maid servant in the backside of the house fled away from there and when he was fleeing he saw the maid servant lying in the backyard with a cut injury on her neck. He jumped over the wall and fled but he did not meet Hari there. After committing the offence he went to the house and slept there. It was also stated by him that the accused Hari took one box and gold with him. 31. In his confessional statements the appellant Dhruba Nath confessed that the accused Pradip Bodo was his friend and on 2.9.2005 at about 9.30 a.m. he went to the house of Pradip and with him they went to a house of Hari gaon to have liquor at about 9.30/10 a.m. They had liquor in a house of Bengali person where they met the accused Hari and Ajit. Ajit was known to him prior to the occurrence. Ajit was known to him prior to the occurrence. He stated after having liquor when he and Pradip prepared to come out accused Hari asked them to have liquor in another house and accordingly they all went to the house and consumed liquor there which was given by Hari. After consuming liquor Hari requested them to go to a house with him. Thereafter they went with Hari to Hari gaon and there Hari entered the house by jumping wall and thereafter opened the gate and called them and thereafter Hari closed the gate. He also stated that the premises of the house was surrounded by brick wall. After entering in the house Hari took out a knife from his waist and entered into the house and they 3 (three) were waiting in the front room. At that time one lady came out of the house and accused Hari asked them to catch her and accordingly he and Pradip caught hold the lady. Accused Hari and Ajit were inside the house and Hari took something from the house and kept in his pocket. When they were caught hold the lady one girl came there near her mother and they caught her also. It was told by him that inside the house there was a maid servant who was taken to the backward by the accused Hari and Ajit and she raised alarm and both Hari and Ajit cut her. He stated that accused Hari who first gave cut injury on the neck of the lady and then stabbed the girl on her chest. Thereafter Hari brought another knife froui the kitchen of the house and gave it to them. He with that knife stabbed the girl on her chest. It is also stated by him that after assaulted by Hari on the lady accused Pradip gave her blow on her neck after she fell down on the ground. A accused Hari gave cut blow on the lady on the back of the neck and the accused Pradip gave cut injury on the side of the neck of the lady. Accused Ajit also inflicted injury on her. He stated that when the accused Hari stabbed the girl on her chest she fell down and thereafter he stabbed her with the knife. Accused Ajit also inflicted injury on her. He stated that when the accused Hari stabbed the girl on her chest she fell down and thereafter he stabbed her with the knife. After believing them to be dead they fled away from there by jumping the wall of the back side of the house. He stated that accused Hari and Ajit fled away from there before them and when he and Pradip were fleeing accused Pradip gave him some looted money. It was also told by him that during the time of his fleeing the looted money was fell down some where and the few notes seized from him by the police at the police station. He and Dhruba were apprehended by the villagers inside the Parowa Bagan and seized the knife which was with them. It is also confessed by him that he and Pradip fled away from the house where they committed murder after seeing two (2) school boys in the house. Thereafter police arrested them and brought them to the police station. 32. In the backdrop of the above factual circumstances as emerged from the testimony of the witnesses as discussed above including the confessional statements made by the appellants, it is seen that the entire prosecution case has been based on circumstantial evidence. It is settled principle of law that in cases where the evidence is purely circumstantial in nature, the facts and circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn must be fully established beyond any reasonable doubt and such circumstances must be consistent and must unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and the chain of circumstances must be established by the prosecution. (See Golakonda Venkateswara Rao v. State of A.R 2003 CriLJ 3731). 33. In the instant case, it has come from the record that after committing crime the appellants fled away from the place of occurrence and amongst the four two accused namely Dhruba Nath and Pradip Rajbanshi were caught red handed with the weapons. Apart from such circumstances the accused/appellants had also made their confessional statements as already appreciated above. The accused/appellants had also made extra judicial confession before the PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 which are undoubtedly corroborative and voluntary. Apart from such circumstances the accused/appellants had also made their confessional statements as already appreciated above. The accused/appellants had also made extra judicial confession before the PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 which are undoubtedly corroborative and voluntary. Besides, all the appellants were identified by PW-4, PW-8, PW-11 and PW-12 in the T.I.P. Another important circumstance noticed that immediately after the occurrence one accused Hari Mura was absconded. In the above premises, there is no occasion to hold that the chain of circumstances was not complete. 34. Having thoroughly considered the entire material evidence of the witnesses as noted above as well as upon close perusal of the confessional statements made by Pradip Rajbanshi, Ajit Rabha and Dhruba Nath so exhibited vide exhibits 12, 13 and 14 respectively and also upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we have no hesitation to hold that all these three appellants were involved in committing the gruesome crime as mentioned above. 35. We do find no valid or acceptable grounds warranting interference with the impugned conviction and sentence so awarded by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Sonitpur, Tezpur. Rather we are in full agreement with the views expressed and the findings recorded by the learned judge. The appeal accordingly fails and stands dismissed. Send down the L.C.R. forthwith. 36. Before parting with the judgment, we would like to put on record our appreciation to Mr. Kamal Agarwal, the learned Amicus Curiae for his valuable assistance rendered in arriving at a conclusion abovementioned. Appeal dismissed.