Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Conviction Of Accused For Allegedly Murdering Wife, Says Evidence Didn't Point Towards Hypothesis Of Guilt
The Gauhati High Court recently set aside the conviction of an accused, who was convicted under Section 302 of IPC by the Trial Court for the murder of his wife, on the ground that the prosecution was unable to lead evidence which had unerringly pointed towards the guilt of the said accused.The division bench comprising Justice Manish Choudhury and Justice Robin Phukan...
The Gauhati High Court recently set aside the conviction of an accused, who was convicted under Section 302 of IPC by the Trial Court for the murder of his wife, on the ground that the prosecution was unable to lead evidence which had unerringly pointed towards the guilt of the said accused.
The division bench comprising Justice Manish Choudhury and Justice Robin Phukan observed:
“The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. That the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty and the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.”
Facts
The accused-appellant was charged with uxoricide. A General Diary Entry (GDE) was registered at 09:00 a.m. on November 30, 2015, on the basis of telephonic information given by the VDP Secretary of Simsimpur (PW 1). As per GDE. PW 1 informed over the phone that on the previous night, his co-villager (appellant) killed his wife by assaulting her and the dead body was lying inside his house.
At around 08:15 pm on November 30, 2015, PW 1 lodged the FIR before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) [PW 7] and which was forwarded to the Officer-In-Charge, Ratabari Police Station for registering a case under proper sections of law. On receipt of the said FIR, a case was registered against the accused-appellant under Section 302 of IPC.
As per the FIR, PW 1 mentioned that the accused came to his house and informed him that at around 12:30/01:00 a.m. on the night intervening November 29, 2015, and November 30, 2015, the accused, Abdul Sukkur had cut his wife inside his house with a hoe and the dead body was lying inside the house of the accused. The informant PW 1, further stated that he went to the house of the accused immediately thereafter and on finding the dead body there informed the Police about the matter.
The Trial Court vide judgment and order dated June 12, 2017, convicted the accused-appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-.
Thus, the accused-appellant preferred the present appeal before the High Court.
The Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused-appellant submitted that though the incident had occurred inside the house of the accused-appellant and the deceased but they were not alone as there were other inmates in the house at the relevant time.
It was further contended that none of the prosecution witnesses had attributed the act of assault to the accused-appellant and as such, the trial court had erred to reach a finding that the prosecution had brought the charge for the offence of murder beyond all reasonable doubts.
On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) submitted that the remaining parts of the testimonies of the hostile witnesses were found reliable enough to consider with other evidence or materials on records and the trial court after proper appreciation of the entire evidence or materials on record, has rightly arrived at the finding on the charge of murder.
It was further argued that from evidence or materials on record, it has emerged that there was no possibility of any third person committing the crime. Thus, it was the accused-appellant who had, in all probability, committed the murder of his wife.
The Court observed that none of the prosecution witnesses stated that he or she had witnessed the incident or any act of assault.
It was further noted by the Court that merely because the court has given permission to the Public Prosecutor to cross-examine his own witness describing him as a hostile witness, it does not completely efface his evidence.
“The evidence remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base the conviction upon the testimony of such witness, if corroborated by other reliable evidence. It is for the court to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed with regard to a part of his testimony. If the court finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken the court may, after reading and considering the evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept in the light of the other evidence on record, that part of his testimony which the court finds to be creditworthy and act upon it,” the Court said.
The Court highlighted that the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses namely P.W.2, P.W.3 & P.W.5, by the prosecution after declaring them as hostile with the permission of the court, did not result in any contradiction.
It was further observed by the Court that the prosecution had not led any direct evidence as regards witnessing of the act of murderous assault on the deceased.
“In case the prosecution has to bring home a charge on the basis of circumstances then also the principle that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts does not variate. Therefore, the prosecution is required to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts by proving the entire chain of circumstances, not leaving any link missing for the accused to escape,” the Court said.
The Court noted that the entire incident had occurred during mid-night hours inside the dwelling house of the accused and the deceased who were stated to be sleeping with their children. The Court said that there was no question put to the daughter of the accused (PW2) as regards existence of light when she woke up from sleep hearing the screaming of her parents.
“Sleeping at night with lights off is more normal than sleeping at night with lights on. The prosecution had also not led any evidence as to whether the dwelling house of the accused and the deceased was connected with electricity,” the Court remarked.
It was highlighted by the Court that if an accused does not offer any explanation the same may not be sufficient to hold conclusively that the accused was guilty of the crime, but the act of maintaining silence without offering any explanation could be considered to be a circumstance against him in certain situations.
The Court further observed that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes vital significance and it is considered to be a link in the chain.
“No evidence was led by the prosecution on motive in the instant case. From the explanation given by the accused as regards what had happened during that night it cannot be said that the same was not a plausible explanation. The explanation offered was that on that night the accused was sleeping in a different room and the murderous assault had occurred prior to his reaching the room of his wife after lighting a lamp. P.W.2 did not depose anything as to whether there was light inside the hose/room when woke up hearing the screaming of both her parents, that is, the accused and the deceased,” the Court noted.
Thus, the Court held that the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and order of sentence passed by the trial court.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 31
Case Title: Abdul Sukkur v. The State of Assam
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (J) no. 84/2017