The Gauhati High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justices Manash Ranjan Pathak & Mir Alfaz Ali observed that to prove the guilt of accused prosecution is required not only to prove the circumstances but also to complete the chain of circumstances (Md Jakir Hussain V The State Of Assam And Anr)
The bench noted that in order to prove the guilt of the accused persons in a case on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is required not only to prove the circumstances but also to complete the chain of circumstances on the basis of which the guilt of the accused can be established. But in the present case, the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of events and the evidence so as to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the said chain of evidence remained incomplete.
Facts of the Case
The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence which was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the appellants was convicted under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life with fine of and default Rigorous Imprisonment for further 1 month each.
The facts of the case that lead to conviction are, an ejahar was lodged by Nayab Ali wherein it was stated that one day his son Hussain Ali left his house on a bicycle along with Rs. 3000/- to purchase a Godrej Almirah but did not return home that night and went missing. Next day his dead body was found with a severed head and the money and phone were missing. In the ejahar the informant stated that he suspected Jakir Hussain, Jiabur Rahman and Babul Ali son of Abdul Hussain as the persons involved in murdering his son as those persons resided near his house and had been working as laborers along with his son for the last 4/5 months and his said son use to spend his leisure time with them.
During the course of investigation, all relevant steps were taken by the investigative officer. The three accused were then apprehended and arrested and their statements were also recorded. Since no such incriminating materials were found against the alleged arrested accused Babul Ali and Halima Khatun, they were not sent up for trial. The learned Trial Judge after completion of recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses recorded the statements of the accused-appellants under Sections 313 CrPC. During the cross-examination, it was contended that the accused Jakir told police that he had killed Hussain Ali 1-2 days before he led police to the recovery of lathi used in the incident.
The witnesses during cross-examination specified that the accused Jakir has agreed and confessed to the crime. Later, Dr. Gopendra Mohan Das, the autopsy doctor who conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased Hussain Ali during the recording of his evidence in chief deposed before the learned Trial Court that the deceased was a male of 23 years of age and during such examination, he found the following injuries that the head was severed by a sharp object. He also deposed that as per his opinion the cause of death of the deceased was due to haemorrhage and shock sustained by him as a result of amputation, head cut injury over the neck.
Contention of the Parties
Learned counsels for the appellants submitted that as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt and the required completion of chain, they are entitled for acquittal in the case. It was also placed before the Court that as the accused persons made their statements being in police custody regarding commission of the crime, the same cannot be considered in evidence against them so as to punish them under Section 302 IPC.
With regard to the statements made by the accused Jakir Hussain before police in the police station with regard to recovery of arms allegedly used in the commission of the crime, it was submitted that the said disclosure statement of the accused Jakir (Exhibit-6) cannot be a valid piece of evidence so as to prove the guilt of the accused persons in the case. It is also submitted by the learned counsels for the appellants that weapon seized, though stated to have the blood stain, was not forwarded to the FSL for its necessary examination and as the prosecution failed to do the same said dao seized by police cannot be said to have been used during commission of the crime by the accused persons.
On the other hand Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State fairly submitted that the confessional statement made by the accused person before police even in presence of other witnesses cannot be entertained as a valid piece of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused persons.
Courts Observation & Judgment
The court observed, “However, marshalling the evidence of PW.1 we have seen that the informant PW.1 father of the deceased in his evidence before the learned Trial Court as well as in the FIR filed in the case did not state that accused Akkas Ali had called his son away around 06:00 pm on the previous evening of 06.04.2013. Rather, the informant PW.1 father of the deceased in his evidence before the learned Trial Magistrate as well as in his written ejahar clearly stated that on the evening of 05.04.2013 around 07:00 pm his son left his house in his bicycle with Rs. 3000/- and mobile phone to purchase a Godrej Almirah from Borghuli. Though the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and gruesome there was no eye witness to the incident and the prosecution is required to prove the guilt of the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.”
It was also, stated that “Though, the disclosure statement made by the accused Jakir Hussain Exhibit-6 before police and then he led the police persons along with other witnesses to the house of Amir (PW.7) from where the dao and the split bamboo, alleged weapons of offence, used in the commission of the crime, were seized; but police did not send those articles to the FSL for their necessary examination so as to ascertain whether those were used by the accused person in committing the crime or not.”
The HC acquitting the appellant noted, “To prove the guilt of the accused persons in a case on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is required not only to prove the circumstances but also to complete the chain of circumstances on the basis of which the guilt of the accused can be established. But in the present case, prosecution has failed to complete the chain of events and the evidence so as to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the said chain of evidences remained incomplete. For the reasons above, we are of the opinion that due to lack of and non completion of chain of evidence and circumstances, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.04.2016, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Sessions Case No. 167/2013 cannot sustain and accordingly, we set aside and quash the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence. Accordingly, we allow these three appeals and acquit the three appellants from all the charges leveled against them.”
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
