GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON SOSENDRA RABHA V/S THE STATE OF ASSAM

GUWAHATI, India, Jan. 12 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Dec. 11:

1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent.

2. The appellant has put to challenge the impugned judgment dated 04.04.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Goalpara, in Sessions Case No. 114/2029, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for having killed his friend with an axe.

3. Mr. A. Ahmed, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant, submits that the learned Trial Court could not have convicted the appellant, as it has not been proved that the axe that had been seized by the police was the weapon used for committing crime in question. He submits that though the axe had been seized by the police and the same was sent to the FSL for forensic examination, there was no proof that the blood stain found on the axe belonged to that of the deceased. As such, there was no proof that the axe was the weapon used in the crime. In this respect, he relies upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Anil Nath Vs. State of Assam reported in 2018 (1) GLT 579. He further submits that the evidence of the doctor was to the effect that in his opinion the injury on the head of the deceased could also have been caused by a tree falling on the head of the deceased.

4. Mr. A. Ahmed, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, thus submits that when the foundational facts have not been proved by the prosecution regarding the appellant being the cause of death of the deceased, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC was not sustainable. He also submits that the conviction of the appellant has been made on the basis of the admission given by the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he admitted to killing the deceased with the axe. He submits that in terms of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Singh Vs. Prem Singh and Anr. reported in (2002) 10 SCC 236 and in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2010) 12 SCC 350, conviction of an accused cannot be based merely on the statement made by an accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, as it is not substantive evidence. He accordingly submits that the impugned judgment should be set aside and the appellant should be acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the IPC.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=zDLovBVSUw02H8XukOjXfGxpWt9CtlOpjrbXWCANccUUQ3CHHoOViCLkdnJ%2F3Y0z&caseno=CRL.A(J)/58/2022&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010093462022&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.