GUWAHATI, India, Dec. 10 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Nov. 11:

1. Heard Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel and APP, Assam, appearing for the State.

2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 31/052023 Passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Biswanath, Biswanath Chairali, in Sessions Case No. 8/2022, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC for having caused the death of his neighbor Bijay Tanti, who had gone to the house of the appellant, to stop the appellant and his wife from quarreling with each other. The appellant was thereafter sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) month.

3. The Prosecution case in brief, is that the wife of the deceased, who is also Prosecution witness (PW) No.1, submitted an FIR dated 23/06/2019 to the Officer-in-Charge of the Gingia Police Station, stating that at about 10 p.m. on 22/06/2019, the appellant had killed her husband by hacking him with a dao, following an altercation on a trivial matter. Consequent to the FIR, Gingia PS case No. 81/2019 under Section 302 IPC was registered. After investigation was completed by the Investigating Officer (IO) (PW-6), the I.O submitted the charge-sheet, having found a prima facie case under Section 302 IPC against the appellant.

4. After the case had been committed to the learned Sessions Court for trial, the Sessions Court framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the appellant, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned Trial Court thereafter examined 6 (six) prosecution witnesses and after examining the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., it came to a finding that the appellant was guilty of having murdered the deceased. The learned Trial Court thereafter convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced the appellant, as stated earlier.

5. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that there were no eyewitnesses to the crime and no weapon was seized by the Police. He also submits that the circumstantial evidence did not form a complete chain, to justify the learned Trial Court in convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC. He also submits that vital witnesses who had allegedly seen the crime, as had been narrated in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, had not been made prosecution witnesses by the police and in the absence of their evidence, Section 302 IPC could not have been said to be proved against the appellant. He also submits that Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not attracted to the facts of the case, inasmuch as, the prosecution had not been able to produce circumstantial evidence/foundational facts, pointing to the guilt of the appellant.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=tuqye3PhFs%2BBDn75ghiOpO%2Fr7Myc8XQXV41nYLjbrG4JlepzRL571MKDMz%2FRS78J&caseno=CRL.A(J)/83/2023&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010140292023&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.