Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Gauhati Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer set aside the conviction of a man sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code [corresponding to Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023]. The court held that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and directed his immediate release, unless required in any other case. The Division Bench allowed the appeal, thereby reversing the judgment and order of the trial court that had earlier convicted and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment along with a fine.

The case arose out of an incident reported on 25.02.2022 involving the alleged murder of Niranjan Pegu, a contractor. An Ejahar was filed on 26.02.2022 by Dashiram Pegu, father of the deceased, stating that his son was assaulted by unknown persons while returning from Selek village after paying wages to labourers. Initially registered under Sections 341/325/34 IPC, the case was later modified to include Section 302 IPC.

Also Read: Preventive Detention Must Not Circumvent Ordinary Criminal Law | Order Set Aside As State Failed To Show Threat To Public Order : Supreme Court

Upon investigation, charges were framed under Sections 120B, 341, and 302 IPC against three accused persons: Ajay Kuli (appellant), Ram Kuli, and Moni Doley Pegu. The trial court acquitted the other two and convicted only the appellant under Section 302 IPC, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 20,000, in default of which he would undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

Fifteen witnesses were examined during the trial. Key witnesses included:

• PW 2, the informant and father of the deceased, stated in cross-examination that he had heard about a motorcycle accident and did not witness the incident.

• PW 4 alleged a motive based on personal enmity and illicit relationships and stated he heard a confession by co-accused Raju Saikia Pegu. He admitted to not being an eyewitness.

• PW 5 deposed about recovery of a bamboo stick and blood stains but was not a signatory to the relevant seizure list (Exhibit P2).

• PW 6, brother of the deceased, identified injuries inconsistent with medical findings and did not witness the assault.

• PW 8, initially arrested and later examined under Section 164 CrPC [corresponding to Section 183 BNSS], stated during re-examination that his statement was recorded, but did not elaborate on the content.

• PW 12, a hostile witness, stated the victim claimed his injuries were due to an accident.

• PW 15, the medical examiner, confirmed death due to coma from blunt head injuries, which could result from an accident.

The I.O. (PW 14) deposed about recovery of evidence including a bamboo stick and mobile phone, and a statement made under Section 164 CrPC by PW 8. He admitted that no forensic test was conducted on the bamboo stick and that seizure witnesses did not attest to the seizure.

Appellant’s counsel, Shri J. Payeng, argued that the conviction was based solely on circumstantial evidence without a complete chain linking the accused to the crime. He challenged the credibility of witnesses, inconsistencies in testimonies, uncorroborated seizures, and failure to prove motive or place of occurrence conclusively.

The prosecution, led by Ms. S. Jahan (Additional PP) and Ms. M. K. Brown (Legal Aid Counsel), argued that a complete chain of circumstances was established, including the appellant's warning, presence at the location, recovery of blood-stained items, and confessions made by co-accused.

The court recorded: "The present case is one based on circumstantial evidence and there is no eyewitness. Under such circumstances, the prosecution is cast with the burden to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, a chain of circumstances which lead to only one conclusion i.e. of the guilt of the accused/appellant and no other hypothesis is possible."

It observed: "PW 2, who is the informant, and the father of the deceased did not make any implicating statements against the appellant and rather in his cross-examination had heard that the deceased had met with a motor cycle accident."

On PW 4: "PW 4 had tried to bring the aspect of the motive by deposing about certain illicit affairs as well as monetary transaction but had clarified in his cross-examination that at the time of the occurrence, he was at his residence which was at a distance of 4 kms from the place of occurrence."

Regarding seizure of the alleged murder weapon, the court stated: "Though there appear two signatures in Ext. P 2 belonging to PW 7 and 9, neither of them had proved their signatures and therefore, the seizure of the lathi has not been proved in accordance with law."

On the evidentiary value of Section 164 CrPC statements, the court stated: "Though there may not be any dispute with such proposition, statements made under Section 164 can definitely be proved by the witness while making his deposition on the dock. The requirement, however, is to sift such statements along with the other materials."

Concerning dying declaration: "As per the deposition of PWs 11 and 12, the deceased had told them that he had met with an accident and such statement was made just prior to his death... a dying declaration can be utilized even by an accused."

It further noted inconsistencies: "PW 6 had narrated that he saw the pool of blood lying under the house of Moni Doley, PW 8 had narrated that blood spot was found at a distance of about 200 metres from the house of Moni Doley."

The court held: "Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof."

"In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof."

The Division Bench declared: "We are of the considered opinion that the circumstances existing would not lead to an inevitable conclusion of complicity / guilt of the appellant."

Also Read: Calcutta HC Quashes NI Act Case Against Company Secretary | Holds Mere Designation Without Day-To-Day Role Cannot Attract Liability Under Sections 138/141

Accordingly, it directed: "The judgment dated 22.03.2023 and order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Majuli in Session Case No.07/2022, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC [Corresponding to Section 103 BNS], are hereby set aside."

The court ordered: "The appellant is accordingly directed to be released forthwith, unless he is wanted in any other case."

Additionally: "Before parting, we record our appreciation for the assistance and service rendered by Ms. Brown, the learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2, who would be entitled to the prescribed fee."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Shri J. Payeng, Advocate

For the Respondents: Ms. S. Jahan, Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam; Ms. M. K. Brown, Legal Aid Counsel

Case Title: Ajay Kuli vs The State of Assam and Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2025: GAU-AS:8168

Case Number: Crl.A./185/2023

Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer

[Read/Download order]