High Court
Case Details
CRL.A(J) 9/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE T. VAIPHEI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. PATHAK JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL) (T. Vaiphei, J) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.11.2009 p 1. assed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Cachar, Silcha r in Sessions Case No.11 of 2008 convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and, i n default thereof, to suffer another rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months.
Legal Reasoning
3. After conducting the investigation of the case such as visiting the plac e of the occurrence, preparing the sketch map of the place of incident, recordin g the statement of witnesses, seizure of incriminating materials, conducting inq uest over the dead body and conducting post mortem examination of the dead body, the police found a prima facie case against the appellant U/s 302 IPC and accor dingly charge- sheeted him to face the trial. At this stage, it may be noted tha t the appellant had been absconding from the date of the incident for about 5 ye ars and was arrested only on 20.2.2008. On commitment, the learned Additional Se ssions Judge (Fast Track Court), Cachar framed the charge against him under Sect ion 302 IPC, which was read over and explained to the appellant to which he plea ded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To bring home the charge against accused -appellant, the prosecution examined seven (7) witnesses including some material s exhibits and documents. The appellant however, did not adduce any defense witn ess. After recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the appellant wa s examined under Section 313 CrPC in which all the incriminating evidences appea ring in evidence were put to the accused person for explanation, but he denied o f having committed the crime against him. On the contrary, he set up a plea of a libi and stated that at the time of occurrence, he was at Dharmanagar (Tripura) and that for the last seven (7) months prior to the occurrence, he had been resi ding at rented house of one Ganesh Paul of Smasan Kalibari Ghat and used to work as a Carpenter staying in the said house. Thus, the case of the appellant is th at he has been falsely implicated by the police. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the le gality whereof is now under challenge. 4. Mr. K.K. Bhatta, learned Amicus Curiae argued that there are many contra dictions and gaping holes in the case of the prosecution, which vitiate the conv iction of the appellant. According to him, when PW-2 and PW 5 have been declared as hostile witnesses and did not corroborate the evidence of PW 1 and PW 3, ser ious doubt is cast upon the story of the prosecution. In a criminal case, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the crime charged against him. He reiterates time and again that bot h PW 2 and PW 5 deposed that they did not see the commission of the crime by the appellant, and under the circumstance, it will not be safe to rely on the evide nce of PW 1 and PW 3 to convict the appellant. As the trial court has failed to appreciate evidence in its correct perspective, submits the learned Amicus Curie , the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in law, and is liable to be set asid e. On the other hand Ms. S. Jahan, learned Addl. P.P. submits that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity and does not call for the interferen ce of this Court. The learned Addl. P.P. further submits that the extra judicial confession made by the appellant before the prosecution witnesses, the veracity whereof could not be shaken in any manner by the defense in their cross-examina tion, is sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant. The contradictions and discrepancies sought to be relied upon by the learned Amicus Curie are minor in nature and cannot otherwise destroy of the core of prosecution case, which is ba sed on both proven circumstantial evidence: man may, but circumstances cannot. S he, therefore, strenuously urges this Court to dismiss the appeal, which is devo id of merit. 5. We have seen that there are no ocular witnesses and that the case of the prosecution is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. On careful examinatio n of the impugned judgment and other materials on record and after giving our an xious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned Amicus Curiae as well as the learned Addl. P.P., we are of the view that the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC. In convicting the appellant, the trial court principally relies on the evidence of PW 1 and PW 3. It may be notic ed that PW 2 and 5, who accompanied PW 1 and PW 3 to the place of occurrence jus t after the incident, however, turned hostile in the course of trial. PW-1, who is the neighbour of the deceased, and deposed that on the night of the occurren ce, while he was at home, at around 8.45 P.M., he heard a woman shrieking from n earby paddy fields whereafter he called his neighbour (PW-3) and apprised him of what he had just heard. He along with PW-3 and some other persons then proceede d to the place wherefrom the cry of a woman came. He further deposed that with t he torch they were focusing, they found bloodstain at the place of the occurrenc e. When they proceeded further following the blood, deposed the witness, they sa w the appellant sitting on a paddy field and showing them a sword and forbidding them not to proceed further. According to PW 1, the appellant confessed to them that he killed his wife and thereafter he fled away. This witness also testifie d that they raised hue and cry whereupon other villagers also gathered there and after searching the place, they found the deceased, who is the none other than the wife of the appellant, lying on the paddy field. According to the PW-1, the deceased was found stabbed by a knife at her neck: the deceased had already died by that time. He also testified that they informed the occurrence to the member of Zila Parishad, who then informed the matter to the police. The police came t o the spot on the very night of the place of occurrence and took away the dead b ody to the Police Station. In his cross examination PW-1, he deposed that the de ad body was found on a paddy field at a distance of about 200 meters from his ho use and reiterated that they saw the deceased by lighting torch. The cross exami nation of the PW-1 does not elicit anything to impeach his credibility. It may b e noted that the statement of this witness in his examination-in-chief that the appellant told them that he killed his wife (the deceased) has not in any manner been shaken by the defense in the cross-examination. Apart from mere denial, no other tangible materials could be brought out by the defense to cast doubt on t he version of this witness. 6. PW-2 was declared as a hostile witness by the prosecution. He testified in his examination-in-chief that on the day of the occurrence, he along with the other co-villagers saw dead body of the deceased and that the deceased, wife of the appellant was found lying with injury at her neck. He deposed that he did n ot see the appellant at the place of the occurrence. PW-3 in his evidence stated that the appellant is his co-villager while deceased is the wife of the appella nt. He testified that on the night of the occurrence, while he was at home at ab out 8.45 P.M., he heard a cry from the direction of the nearby paddy field. Acco rding to him, at that time he was with Harendra Nath and Brojendra Nath and on h earing the sound of shrieking, they all came out from his house and after taking a torch in his hand, they proceeded towards the paddy field wherefrom they hear d the shrieking. He further testified that on the way to the place of the occurr ence, they saw blood and followed the blood stains and on proceeding further, th ey found a dead body lying in the paddy field and the appellant sitting near the dead body. According to him, when he asked the appellant what he was doing ther e, the appellant showed them a sword and forbade them to proceed further toward him and then told them that he killed his wife and when they started shouting, t he appellant fled away. It is also testified by PW-3 that when they went up to t he dead body, they saw the dead body of the deceased lying in the paddy field wi th the light of the torch. According to him, they saw cut injury on the dead bod y and the knife was still on the neck of the deceased. He further deposed that t hey reported the incident to the member of the Zila Parishad who immediately app rised the police of the incident over telephone. The Police rushed to the place of occurrence and took away the dead body to the police station. The police seiz ed the knife which was found on the neck of the deceased and the same is exhibit ed as material Ext-1 whereas the seizure list is exhibited as Ext-1(1). PW-3 is the one who lodged the complaint the very next day. The cross examination of thi s witness does not disclose anything to falsify his testimony in any material pa rticular. On the contrary, PW 3 fully corroborated the statement of PW 1 in mate rial particulars, namely, (i) on the confession made by the appellant to them th at he killed his wife (the deceased); (2) on the report made by them to the Memb er of the local Zilla Parishad, who immediately informed the police about the in cident by telephone. In our opinion, this statement made to PW 3 immediately aft er the occurrence near the dead body of the deceased, which corroborated the evi dence of PW is relevant under the rule of res gestae embodied in Section 6 of th e Evidence Act, 1882. This rule is an exception to the rule of evidence that hea rsay evidence is not admissible. 7. In our opinion, this statement made by the appellant to PW 1 immediately after the occurrence near the dead body of the deceased and corroborated by the evidence of PW 3 is also in the nature of extra- judicial confession. The settl ed law is that the maker of confession can be convicted on the basis of extra-ju dicial confession. Extra-judicial confession possesses high probative value as i t emanates from the person who committed the crime, provided it is free from sus picion. While appreciating the extra-judicial confession, the Court is to consid er the relevant factors like:- (a) to whom is made, for example, whether it is m ade before a person or persons who appear to be unbiased or inimical, (b) the ti me and place of making it, (c) the circumstances in which it was made, (d) wheth er and (e) whether confessional statement is found to be voluntary and free from pressure. It must be remembered that there is no rule that the extra-judicial c onfession is not to be accepted if the witness gives the substance of it and not the actual words. Extra judicial confession made by the appellant before the PW -1 and PW-3 is reliable and corroborated by the evidence of the PW-6. No evidenc e is adduced by the defense that these witnesses were inimical to the appellant are were biased. Neither is it the case of the defense that the circumstance in which the extra-judicial confession was made by the appellant was suspicious. On the contrary, there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the version of these witnesses: they are rather natural witnesses and are absolutely trustworthy, and their testimonies can be acted upon. There is nothing to suggest that they are inimical and biased to the appellant. At this stage, we may reproduce the findi ngs of the trial court in this behalf as follows: PWs found the accused person at the paddy field beside the dead body of PWs went to the place of occurrence at around 8-45 P.M., within a short Now, considering the entire evidence of PWs, I find that the following c (cid:28)24. ircumstances appear from the testimony of the PWs --- 1. time after the occurrence, hearing scream of the deceased. 2. his wife with fresh injury on her person. 3. Upon being questioned as to his cause of presence there at such an hour of night at the lonely paddy field the accused told that he killed his wife and the accused warned them not to proceed towards him sensing that he would be appr ehended by them. 4. Accused terrorized the PWs raising a sword and threatened them with dire consequences. 5. on 20-2-08. Immediately after the occurrence the accused absconded. He was arrested 8. The findings so made and the inference drawn by the trial court in the f oregoing cannot be faulted with in any manner: they are based on circumstantial evidence clinchingly established by the prosecution. It may be noted that the in formation regarding the commission of the murder of the deceased by the appellan t, which took place at around 8.45 PM of 25-9-2003 was immediately brought to th e notice of the police who evidently entered the information in the G.D. Entry a t about 10.35 P.M. of the same evening vide Ext. 7. The speed with the crime was reported to the police by informant and the investigation itself got commenced on that very night clearly strengthened the case of the prosecution, and there w as no room for manipulating evidence. The fact that the appellant had been absco nding since the death of incident for about 5 years till the date of his surrend er in Court after five years or so is also a relevant fact probabilising the gui lty intent of his mind. Such conduct is relevant under the provision of Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1882. Finally, drawing our attention to the plea taken by the appellant in his examination under Section 313, CrPC, it is argued by the l earned amicus curie that as the appellant was at the time of occurrence Tirpura, he could not possibly commit the crime. The plea taken by the appellant is repr oduced below: (cid:28)I am totally innocent. At the time of occurrence, I was in the house of G anesh Pal at Smalon Kalibari Ghat, Dharmanagar (Tripuraa). Prior to 7 months of the occurrence, I had been residing there as a tenant and used to work there as a carpenter. I did not commit the incident. The witnesses have falsely implicate d in this case (cid:29) 9. We have carefully examined the plea taken by the appellant. The word ali bi is a Latin word and it means (cid:28)elsewhere (cid:29). This word is used for convenience w hen an accused takes recourse to a defense line that when the occurrence took pl ace he was so far away from the place of occurrence that it is extremely improba ble that he would have participated in the crimeAlibi is not an exception (speci al or general) envisaged in the Indian Penal Code or any other law. It is only a rule of evidence recognized in Section 11 dof the Evidence Act that facts which are inconsistent with the fact in issue are relevant. Illustration (A) given un der the provision is worth reproducing in this context: (cid:28)The question is whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain date; the fact that on that date, A was at Lahore is relevant. (cid:29) It is basic law that in a criminal case, in which the accused is alleged to have inflicted physical injury to another person, the burden is on the prosecution t o prove that the accused was present at the scene and has participated in the cr ime. This burden would not be lessened by the mere fact that the accused has ado pted the defense of alibi. The plea of the accused in such cases need be conside red only when the burden has been discharged by the prosecution satisfactorily. But once the prosecution succeeds in discharging the burden, it is incumbent on the appellant, who adopts the plea of alibi, to prove it with absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence. Ho wever, the burden is on the appellant to show that he was somewhere else other t han the place of occurrence at the time of the incident. The appellant has to es tablish his plea of alibi by positive evidence. In the instant case, the plea of alibi has been raised by him for the first time in his examination under Sectio n 313, CrPC. In his cross-examination, he never made any suggestion to this effe ct. Before acting upon this self-serving statement of the appellant, he is, the refore, required to establish this plea of alibi by positive evidence. Unfortuna tely, he did not even bother to examine the said Ganesh Pal of Tripura, who acco rding to him, was his landlord, to corroborate his plea that he was residing at his house as his tenant for seven months, and was his house at the time of the incident. In our considered view, in the absence of corroboration, it is difficu lt to believe that he was in Tripura at the time fof the occurrence. Therefore, the plea of alibi stands rejected. 10. Coming now to the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased, the pros ecution exhibited the post mortem report and examined PW-4, the Medical Officer, who conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased. The following i njuries were found on the body of the deceased - 1) gle of the jaw puncturing the carotid vessels under-neath. Stab would 3 X 1 X 4 cms. with beveling over right side of neck below an 2. Stab wound 2.5 X .5 X 2 cms on left side and same site. 3. Incised wound in transverse plane front of neck 6 cms. long in lower mid part cutting the skin only. Thorax : Thorax organs showed early decomposition changes with healthy ribs. Abdominal organs also shows early decomposition changes. Scalp found softened. Membrane and brain found softened. Spinal cord not examine d. Skull and vertebrae found healthy. Opinion : Cause of death was haemorrhage, resulting from the stab wounds. All wo unds were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. 11. There is no dispute about the nature of injuries sustained by the deceas ed or that the injuries inflicted upon him were sufficient ijn the course of nat ure to cause the death of the deceased. Both PW 2 and PW-5 have been declared as hostile witnesses by the prosecution. However, contradictions allegedly found i n the statements between the statement of PW-2 and PW-5 recorded by the police a nd their statement before Court cannot be taken advantage of the defense inasmuc h the witnesses were never confronted with their previous statement before the p olice in accordance with Section 145, Evidence Act, 1882. That apart, the fact t hat these two witnesses were declared as hostile witnesses cannot destroy the ev idence of the remaining witnesses which are otherwise reliable, cogent and consi stent throughout. PW-6 is the I.O. of the case, whose evidence are revealing. Th e nature of injuries sustained by the deceased and the manner in which her body was found and the presence of dagger at the neck of the deceased at the time of the occurrence, have fully corroborated the statement of the prosecution witness es in material particular. Under the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the trial Court in convicting the appellant. Thoug h there are no ocular witnesses, yet the circumstances so proved by the prosecut ion against the appellant point to the guilt of the appellant. In State of Goa v . Sanjay Thakran, (2007) 3 SCC 755, the Apex Court reiterated the following prop ositions of law concerning circumstantial evidence: the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn (1) , must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete t hat there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be compl ete and incapable explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of th e accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. The appellant was undoubtedly last seen together with the deceased as pr 12. oved by the statements of PW 1 and PW 3. The extra-judicial confession made by t he appellant to PW 1 and PW 3 does not raise any room for suspicion, and can be acted upon. No explanation was offered by the appellant that as to how he was si tting near the dead body of his wife sustaining fresh injuries when PW 1 and PW 3 came. The appellant threatened PW 1 and 3 not to come near him as otherwise th ey would face dire consequence. The fact that the appellant had been absconding from his village right after the murder of his wife for about five years or so i s an additional circumstance in the chain of circumstances probabilising his gui lty intention to murder the deceased. In our considered view, the prosecution ha s fully satisfied the condition precedents for convicting the appellant on the b asis of circumstantial evidence. In other words, the cumulative effect of all th e above proved circumstances unerringly point to the guilt of the appellant. The refore, it is the appellant, and not anyone else, who caused the death of the de ceased, who is none other than his own wife.
Arguments
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, as projected by the prosecution, a re that on 25.9.2003, at about 10.35 P.M., the In-Charge Malugram T.O.P. receive d an information from one Bikash Das, a member of Zila Parishad of Dudhpatil are a over telephone that on that day, the appellant had killed his wife with a shar p weapon and thrown the dead body in the midst of the paddy field and prayed for action. On the basis of this information, the In-Charge, Malugram T.O.P. made G .D. Entry 495 dated 25-9-2003 and after consulting with the Officer-in-Charge, S ilchar Police Station, proceeded towards Chotodudhpatil, Rangalal Tilla i.e. the place of the occurrence. On 26.9.2003 i.e. the next day, Probhat Deb Nath (PW-3 ) lodged a formal complaint with the Malugram T.O.P. (Silchar Police Station) st ating therein that on 25.9.2003 at around 8.45 P.M. on hearing somebody shriekin g, he along with Amulya Deb Nath (PW-1) and others rushed to the place of occurr ence and with the focus of a torch light, they found a dead body lying on the pa ddy field. They also found the appellant (Dilip Nath) standing therein with the dead body armed with a sword like weapon and told them that he had killed his wi fe and warned them not to go near him otherwise they would face dire consequence . Being afraid, they left the place of occurrence. The appellant then fled away in darkness. On receipt of the said complaint, the In-Charge of Malugram Post Of fice forwarded the same to the O/C, Silchar, P.S., who accordingly, registered a regular case being Silchar P.S. Case No.1162/03 under Section 302 IPC.
Decision
In the result, this appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. T 13. he appellant shall serve out the remaining period of his sentence. The Assam Leg al Services Authority will pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand)only to the lear ned Amicus Curiae as his professional fees. Transmit the L.C. record forthwith.