Daniel Syiemiong vs . State Of Meghalaya & Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 6 Meg

       Serial No.05
       Regular List
                        HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                            AT SHILLONG
Crl.A.(J)No.1/2019
                                                  Date of Order: 08.02.2022
Daniel Syiemiong                  Vs.             State of Meghalaya & anr
Coram:
          Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjib Banerjee, Chief Justice
          Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s)    : Mr. P Yobin, Legal Aid Counsel
For the Respondent(s)              : Mr. ND Chullai, AAG with

Mr. S Sen Gupta, Addl.PP

i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc.:

ii) Whether approved for publication in press: Yes/No

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble, the Chief Justice) (Oral) The appeal arises out of a judgment of conviction dated March 28,

2019 and the consequential order of punishment.

2. On July 3, 2002 a younger brother of the victim lodged a

complaint at the Umiam police station to the effect that Tonsing

Kharumnuid was missing from July 1, 2002 and that the complainant had

come to learn that the person was "killed by his own son Daniel

Syiemiong."

3. It transpires from the records that the appellant made a

confessional statement before the police and was produced before the

Magistrate for a statement to be recorded under Section 164 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellant also confessed to having

committed the crime in the course of the two statements rendered by him

under section 313 of the Code. It appears that the second Section 313

statement was obtained upon the evidence rendered by each witness being

explained in more elaborate detail to the accused to elicit a response in such

regard.

4. In the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code before

the Magistrate, the accused made a statement to the effect that he had killed

his father on July 1, 2002 at about 2 am "by hitting him on his head with an

iron rod and he died on the spot." The appellant went on to say that the dead

body "was placed by me in a gunny bag and taken to the garden" and, upon

the appellant digging a pit, the body was buried in such pit.

5. In the course of initial statement under Section 313 of the Code

following the trial judge ascertaining from the appellant whether he had

heard the entire evidence against him, the appellant made a statement that he

could no longer bear the ill treatment meted out to his mother, brother and

sister by his father and "losing control I attacked him and had no intention to

kill my father." To another question in the course of the first statement under

Section 313 of the Code the appellant replied that he would not adduce any

evidence. In the subsequent statement recorded on January 22, 2017, the

appellant herein described how he and his mother were ill-treated by the

appellant's father and how the appellant "started hating my father for his ill

treatment towards my mother and other siblings."

6. In response to the second question put to the appellant, he claimed

that he did not intend to kill his father and went on to describe the

circumstances in which he came to hit his father in great detail. According to

such statement, the appellant had gone to watch television at a friend's place

in a nearby village and when he returned on the fateful night he saw

bloodstains on the floor of the verandah. The appellant claimed that he heard

his father coming out of from the kitchen threatening his mother and

"murmuring that he will cut my mother into pieces today ..." The appellant

says that he was scared and angry and he picked up a firewood from the

verandah and "struck on the ear of my father twice ..." He claimed that he

did not remember where he threw the firewood as he fled towards the

jungle, that he returned later and found his father lying on the floor and upon

discovering that his father was dead, "I dragged my father to our garden and

took a spade ... and buried him in the garden ..."

7. The appellant claimed to have returned to his grandmother's

place, where she usually stayed, and reported the incident to the

grandmother, whereupon the grandmother advised the appellant to surrender

before the police. The appellant also claimed that he had admitted his guilt

before the police and had informed the police that he kept the body in a

gunny bag and led the police to the place where he had buried his father.

8. A specific question was put to the appellant, based on the initial

investigating officer's evidence that an iron rod was recovered from the

house of the appellant at the instance of the appellant and that such iron rod

was the murder instrument. (Incidentally, it must be recorded that the

relevant iron rod was not produced in the course of the trial.) The appellant

asserted before the trial judge that he did not show any iron rod to the police

or to any other person as he did not hit his father with an iron rod but "I hit

him with a firewood ... (and) ... do not know how and why the police seized

the iron rod."

9. Several witnesses were called, including the wife of the victim

who is the mother of the appellant herein. Even though such witness said

that the appellant herein had murdered his father, she claimed not to have

witnessed the incident. It is understandable that the lady was torn between

an abusive husband who had been murdered and her affection for her eldest

child who may have relieved her of the continuing torment.

10. The two younger sisters of the victim were also called as

witnesses but there is nothing of note in their statements even though they

claimed that the appellant had admitted to his guilt. Nothing turns on the

evidence of such witnesses or even of the second investigating officer.

11. The post-mortem report indicated injuries to the face and head

and the cause of death was said to be internal haemorrhage suffered by the

victim together with shock. The doctor was examined and corroborated the

opinion that he had rendered in the report.

12. On the basis of the material before the trial court, there was little

doubt that it was the appellant who had committed the offence in a fit of

rage and the appellant had repeatedly confessed to having committed the

offence. The perceived anomalies stressed upon on behalf of the appellant

are of no consequence and can be attributed to failing recollection of some

of the witnesses or the over-zealousness on the part of the police in

producing a murder instrument.

13. De hors the confession by the appellant and the clarification on

the aspect of the recovery of the iron rod, there may have been some ground

to address the anomaly pertaining to the murder weapon. However, in the

light of the lucid clarification issued by the appellant in the course of his two

statements rendered under Section 313 of the Code and the detailed

description of the incident, there can be no doubt that it was the appellant

who killed his father by striking him with a firewood that he found lying in

the nearby verandah.

14. There is another aspect of the matter that requires to be dealt with,

particularly since the reference to the iron rod is in the statement of the

appellant recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code. The

statement was recorded in Khasi language and the translated version of the

statement appears from the records. It must also be remembered that the

appellant may have no formal education as he stated that he had not been

sent to any school by his father. The description of a firewood stick and an

iron rod may be similar in Khasi language. At any rate, no further time

needs to be wasted on this aspect. In the light of the clear, unambiguous and

detailed description of the incident given by the appellant in the course of

his statement under Section 313 of the Code and the post-mortem report

corroborating the nature of the injuries and cause of death which are in tune

with the injuries that the appellant himself admitted to have inflicted on his

father.

15. Further, there is no doubt that it is the appellant who led the police

to the place where he buried his father and the body was exhumed from a

corner of the garden outside the family residence.

16. In the light of the facts as they presented themselves before the

trial court and the appellant's description of the incident, there does not

appear to be any scope to doubt that it was the appellant who had killed his

father in a fit of rage. The motive was clear, the circumstances that led the

appellant being enraged comes out from the appellant's description of what

transpired on the fateful night of July 1, 2002.

17. When the facts are as clear as in the present case, there is hardly

any scope to interfere with the conclusion drawn from such facts by the trial

court or the sentence rendered as a consequence.

18. Accordingly, Crl.A.(J)No.1 of 2019 is dismissed without

interfering with the judgment and order under appeal dated March 28, 2019.

Let a copy of this judgment and order be immediately made available to the

appellant free of cost.

       (W. Diengdoh)                           (Sanjib Banerjee)
           Judge                                  Chief Justice

Meghalaya
08.02.2022
"Lam DR-PS"