Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1314 (GAU)

Motilal Gorh @ Lity v. State Of Assam

2019-12-02

MIR ALFAZ ALI, S.HUKATO SWU

body2019
JUDGMENT : Mir Alfaz Ali, J. Heard Mr. S.Islam, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. M. Phukan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22-07-2016 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Tinsukia in Sessions Case No.251(M)/2014. By the said judgment, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under section 302 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.30,000/- each with default stipulation. 3. According to prosecution, on 30-07-2014 at about 10 pm, the appellant Motilal Garh @ Lity killed the deceased Sonam Sherpa by hacking him with a dao and left the body in a cultivation field. Nima Sherpa (PW-1), brother of the deceased lodged the FIR (Ext.-7), on the basis of which, police registered Margherita PS Case No. 186/2014 under sections 302/34 IPC and commenced investigation. In course of investigation, police recorded the statement of the witnesses, prepared inquest report and sent the body for post mortem examination. 4. Dr. Hemen Buragohain (PW-3), who conducted the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased found the following injuries :- Incised wounds are detected over (i) Vault of scalp size 7cm x 3cm x 2 cm. Direction- horizontal bone, membrane underneath is cut. (ii) Back of scalp size 10cm x 3cm x 4 cm horizontal occipital bone membrane and brain matters are cut. (iii) Right side of scalp. Direction Anterior posterior bone underneath is cut. (iv) Back of neck. Horizontal, size 10cm x 5cm x 3cm. 2nd cervical vertebrae and spinal cord are cut. (v) Right wrist joint size 5cm x 2cm x 1 cm. (vi) Mid part of forehead size 3cm x 2cm x bone depth. 5. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death of the deceased was coma as a result of injury No. 4. All the injuries were ante-mortem and caused by sharp weapon. On conclusion of the investigation charge-sheet was laid against both the appellants u/s 302/34 IPC and eventually they stood trial. 6. In course of trial, learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 9 (nine) witnesses to bring home the charge against the appellants and on appreciation of evidence, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted the appellants and awarded sentence as indicated above. 7. 6. In course of trial, learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 9 (nine) witnesses to bring home the charge against the appellants and on appreciation of evidence, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted the appellants and awarded sentence as indicated above. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no eye witness of the occurrence and the circumstances relied by the learned Sessions Judge also could not be proved conclusively and therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellants cannot be sustained. 8. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr. M. Phukan supporting the impugned judgment, contends that the time of occurrence as reflected in the medical evidence together with the evidence of PW-1 and PW-5 points to the appellants being the perpetrator of the offence and therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants warrants no interference. 9. We have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and also meticulously scrutinized the evidence brought on record. Evidently there was no eye witness of the occurrence and the learned Sessions Judge primarily relying on the following circumstances recorded the conviction of the appellants (i) The death of the victim was homicidal. (ii) On the previous day of the occurrence the appellants came to the house of the victim and took him along with them. (iii) There was quarrel between the victim and the appellant Motilal Garh and confession made by Motilal. (iv) Recovery of the weapon of offence on being led by appellant Motilal. (v) A pair of 'chappal' found in the place of occurrence, which was identified to be of the appellant Sinu Garh. 10. The PW-1, who was also the informant of the case and the brother of the deceased, deposed, that on the day of occurrence both the accused persons came to his house and called his brother (deceased) and took him with them and on the next day his body was recovered. This witness in his previous statement as well as in the FIR lodged by him did not state that the two appellants came on the previous day of the occurrence and took the victim along with them. In the FIR she has clearly stated that accused Motilal Garh killed the victim by hacking him with a 'dao'. This witness in his previous statement as well as in the FIR lodged by him did not state that the two appellants came on the previous day of the occurrence and took the victim along with them. In the FIR she has clearly stated that accused Motilal Garh killed the victim by hacking him with a 'dao'. He however suspected that some other persons also might be involved with the appellant Motilal. 11. Pw-5 stated that at about 10 pm, on hearing hue and cry, he went to the house of Nima Sherpa (informant) and on being asked by him, Nima (PW-1) told that an altercation took place between the accused Motilal Garh @Lity and the deceased Sonam Sherpa and thereafter Sonam Sherpa left the house. The statement of this witness was recorded u/s 164 CrPC, wherein also he stated that an altercation took place between the accused Motilal Garh @Lity and the deceased Sonam Sherpa as stated by Nima Sherpa and thereafter the deceased left the place. If the evidence of PW-5 and PW-1 are read together, it would appear that both the evidence are self-contradictory and mutually destructive. If the evidence of PW1 is believed that both the appellants came to the house of the victim and took the victim along with them, it would belie the evidence of PW-5 regarding the quarrel having taken place between Sonam and the appellant Motilal Garh @ Lity and Sonam going away from house. It is apparent that PW-1 for the first time in court stated, that both the appellants came to his house and took away the victim with them. But in the FIR lodged by him, he has not implicated the appellant Sinu Garh, nor he has stated about the two appellants taking away the victim along with them. Thus, a combined reading of the evidence of PW-1 and PW5 demolishes the evidence of both these witnesses. There was no other evidence on record to show, that on the previous day the appellants took away the victim with them on the previous evening. In view of the above self-contradictory and mutually destructive evidence of the PW-1 and PW-5 and the contradiction in the oral testimony of PW-1 with his previous statement on material facts, as indicated above, in our considered view, no credibility can be attached to the oral testimony of the PW-1 and PW-5. In view of the above self-contradictory and mutually destructive evidence of the PW-1 and PW-5 and the contradiction in the oral testimony of PW-1 with his previous statement on material facts, as indicated above, in our considered view, no credibility can be attached to the oral testimony of the PW-1 and PW-5. Therefore, in our considered opinion the circumstances, viz., there was quarrel between the accused/appellant Motilal and deceased Sonam or that the appellants took away the deceased along with them on the previous evening, cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 12. Pw-1 stated in his evidence that having seen the body of the victim with injuries, he informed his elder brother, who in turn informed the police and police also arrived at the place, where the body of the deceased was lying. He further stated that the appellant Motilal came there and made a confession that he inflicted the injuries to the deceased with a 'dao'. But this witness admitted to have not stated about such confession either in the FIR lodged by him, nor in his statement before police recorded u/s 161 CrPC. 13. Pw-2 also stated, that the accused/appellant Motilal Garh confessed at the place of occurrence before media and other people, that he committed the murder. This witness also admittedly did not state in his previous statement before police that Motilal made any confession, that he committed the offence. It is also evident from the oral testimony of these two witnesses, that the alleged confession was made by the appellant Motilal in presence of the police, who evidently arrested him. Therefore, the alleged confessional statement having made before the police was also not admissible in view of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Otherwise none of the prosecution witnesses have deposed about the confession in their previous statement by the appellant Motillal. 14. Learned trial court also relied upon the statement of the witness regarding recovery of a pair of 'chappal' from the place of occurrence, where the dead body was lying. PW-2 in his evidence stated that a pair of ' hawai chappal' was seized from near the body of the deceased, which was identified by PW-1, However, the PW-1 did not state anything as regards recovery of any ' hawai chappal' or identification thereof. PW-2 in his evidence stated that a pair of ' hawai chappal' was seized from near the body of the deceased, which was identified by PW-1, However, the PW-1 did not state anything as regards recovery of any ' hawai chappal' or identification thereof. In cross-examination this witness also admitted that he did not made such statement before police regarding recovery of 'hawai chappal' from near the dead body. PW-6 also stated that a pair of 'hawai chappal' was found lying at a little distance from the body of Nima Sherpa and the said chappal belonged to accused Sinu Garh. We find from record that no such chappal was seized by police in the instant case. When the chappal, as deposed by PW-2 and PW-6, was neither seized by police, nor the PW-1, who is stated to have identified the chappal, stated nothing regarding the 'hawai chappal', this circumstance also can by no stretch of imagination be held to have been proved. 15. Pw-1 stated that on the following day police recovered a 'dao' being the weapon of offence. The PW-6 stated that Motilal Garh confessed before police that the 'dao' used in the offence was kept concealed under a pillow. PW-6 further stated that though the accused led the police to the place where the dao was kept hidden, no dao could be found under the pillow. But later on, the brother of the accused had shown the place where the 'dao' was hidden and thereafter the police recovered the same from the jungle near a pond. According to PW-7, he accompanied the police to the house of the accused Motilal Garh and on being asked, the family members of the accused Motilal had shown the place, where the accused had concealed the 'dao' and thereafter, the police recovered the 'dao' from the jungle near a pond. The PW-8 the investigating officer deposed, that on the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused/appellant, Motilal, he recovered the 'dao' from a pond, which was seized vide Ext.-6. What is evident from the oral testimony of this witness, including the investigating officer is that a 'dao' was recovered on being shown by the family members of the appellant Motilal Garh. However, the said "dao" was not sent for forensic and serological test. What is evident from the oral testimony of this witness, including the investigating officer is that a 'dao' was recovered on being shown by the family members of the appellant Motilal Garh. However, the said "dao" was not sent for forensic and serological test. Although all the witnesses stated about the machete ("dao"), the seizure list (Ext.6) shows, that the "dao" seized by police was a "khamti dao". Be that as it may, on the basis of the evidence on record, more particularly, the testimony of the seizure witness, it cannot be said for certain that the alleged "dao" was recovered on being led by the appellants. Evidently the seized "dao" was not sent for chemical or serological test. In absence of chemical and serological test of the so-called weapon of offence, mere recovery of the weapon ("dao") may be of no use to the prosecution in the present case, inasmuch as, there is no evidence on record to connect the "dao" seized vide Ext. 6 with the commission of offence. True it is, the lapses on the part of the investigating officer or non-examination of the weapon by chemical expert for serological test, may not, in all cases, affect the prosecution. But in a case, which rests solely on the circumstantial evidence, unless the weapon of offence is subjected to serological test, prosecution would be deprived of any link evidence to connect the weapon with the commission of offence. Therefore, in the present case, non-examination of the weapon for serological test is fatal for the prosecution. In absence of serological test, prosecution is left with no evidence to connect the seized 'dao' with the commission of offence. Therefore, in our considered view, the so-called recovery of weapon in the instant case, is also of no use to the prosecution, in absence of chemical test. 16. It is the settled position by now that a criminal case solely resting on the circumstantial evidence, prosecution is required to prove solidly and conclusively all the circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and the circumstances so proved, taken cumulatively must form a complete and unbroken chain of events leading to the inescapable conclusion, that it was none but the accused/appellant, who committed the offence. In other words, chain of circumstances must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. In other words, chain of circumstances must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that neither the circumstances relied by the learned trial court have been proved conclusively beyond reasonable doubt, nor the chain of events was complete so as to lead an irresistible conclusion that it was none else, but the appellant was the perpetrator of the offence. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellants on the basis of such circumstantial evidence, where chain was incomplete, cannot be maintained. Accordingly, we set aside the conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and allow the appeal. 17. The appellants be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 18. We have taken note of that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not passed any order with regard to payment of compensation to the victim or dependant/dependants of the deceased under Section 357 A of the CrPC. In that view of the matter, we direct that the matter may be placed before the District Legal Services Authority, who shall examine the necessity of providing compensation to the dependant (s) of the deceased, if any. In case the District Legal Services Authority finds that there is/are dependant/dependants of the deceased, necessary order be passed for providing adequate compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme. 19. Send back the LCR.