Gauhati High Court Acquits Man Accused Of Killing Mother & Injuring Brother, Says Incriminating Circumstances Were Not Conclusively Proved

The Gauhati High Court has recently set aside the conviction of a man for allegedly murdering his mother and injuring his brother, on the grounds that incriminating circumstances were not proved beyond all reasonable doubt before the trial court. It was further observed that the allegedly incriminating circumstances did not form a complete chain of events in order to indicate that the accused had committed the said offence.

A division bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Malasri Nandi noted:

“In a case based on circumstantial evidence not only each of the incriminating circumstances have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but those incriminating circumstances must constitute a chain so far complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability it is the accused-appellant who has committed the crime and further, cumulatively, they must exclude all hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused-appellant and inconsistent with his guilt.”

The brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged before the Officer-In-Charge, Barbari Police Station stating that on August 09, 2009 at about 08:30 p.m., the accused-appellant brutally attacked his mother and elder brother over some domestic matters and caused grievous injuries to their person. The mother of the accused succumbed to her injuries.

A case was registered under Sections 302 and 326 of IPC against the accused. After the completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted under the above-mentioned provisions of IPC.

On such basis, the trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for life under Section 302 and to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years under Section 326 of IPC. The Court further directed that both sentences should run consecutively. Subsequently, the accused filed an appeal before the High Court assailing his conviction and order of sentence.

The Counsel appearing for the accused-appellant argued that there was no eyewitness to the incident and the case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence. It was further submitted that the brother of the accused had admittedly suffered injury, but when he deposed before the trial court, he did not support the prosecution case and stated that he was unable to identify the person who assaulted him from behind.

The appellant's counsel further contended that there was no record of statement under Section 164 CrPC and the weapon of offence was not sent for serological examination. It was also pointed out that the signature of the appellant was not obtained in the seizure list which proved that the alleged weapon of offence had not been seized from the possession of the appellant.

The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) submitted that the witnesses examined by the prosecution had failed to prove the fact that the appellant was the perpetrator of the crime. It was pointed out that the prosecution had not prayed for the declaration of the witnesses as hostile, due to which their statements before the trail court had remained unchallenged.

The APP argued that though the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC, there was ample scope to consider reduction of sentence under Section 304 Part I/Part II IPC.

Upon hearing the parties, the Court noted that there was no eye-witness to the incident and according to the accused's injured brother (PW 5), he could not identify who had inflicted injury on him and his mother. It was highlighted by the Court there was no explanation from the side of the prosecution on why the injured brother i.e. PW 5 was not declared hostile.

“Admittedly, this is a case based on circumstantial evidence. It is a trite law that to convict an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt each of incriminating circumstances on which it proposes to rely,” the Court said.

As such, the Court observed that the incriminating circumstances in this case were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the order of conviction recorded by the trial court was not justified. It remarked:

“Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of discharging its primary burden of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. It is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a conviction, or which makes out a prima facie case, the question arises of considering facts of which the burden of proof would lie upon the accused.”

The Court relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116; State of U.P. v. Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114; Pawan v. State of Uttaranchal (2009) 15 SCC 259 and G. Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka (2010) 8 SCC 593.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order of sentence was set aside and the appellant was acquitted on benefit of doubt.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 100

Case Title: Mohan Kumar v. The State of Assam & Anr.

Case No: Crl.A./295/2022

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment