Geju Praja vs State Of Assam

Ajit Singh, C.J

The appellant Geju Praja has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of

Rs.3000/- with default stipulation.

The victim of the incident was Mansai Praja, aged about 40 years. He was resident ofBahjoni village, Tengakhat within the district of Dibrugarh,

Assam.

According to the prosecution case, on 14/12/2008 at about 6.30 PM, when CheniramKurmi (PW-2)-a resident of Bhajoni village-was returning

home, he saw a dead body lying in the drain near his house. He immediately informed the discovery of the dead body to the Gaon Burha and other

villagers. The news spread like a wildfire and many villagers including Tileswar Modi (PW-3), Pradip Praja (PW-4), Prodip Praja (PW-5), Jiten Praja

(PW-7), Debaru Praja (PW-8) arrived at the place of occurrence. It was found that the dead body was of their co-villager-Mansai Praja. Several cut

injuries were found on the body of Mansai Praja. Rajesh Praja (PW-1)-brother of Mansai Praja-then lodged the Exhibit-1 First Information Report

before the Tengakhat Police Station stating that Mansai Praja was killed by some unknown person dealing dao blows and his dead body was left on

the road at Bhajoni Tea Estate.

Mrinal Kumar Das(PW-10), who was posted in the Tengakhat Police Station at thattime, immediately rushed to the place of occurrence, recoded

statements of the witnesses, drew Exhibit-5 sketch map, conducted inquest over the dead body vide Exhibit-7 inquest report and sent the dead body of

Mansai Praja for post-mortem examination. During investigation he arrested the appellant who confessed about killing Mansai Praja out of vengeance

as Mansai Praja and his father assaulted the appellant and his father a few years back for which the father of the appellant had to lose his right leg

forever. At the time of making the confession before police, Debaru Praja and other villagers were also present. On being led by the appellant, Mrinal

Kumar Das recovered a dao-being the weapon of assault. The dao was hidden under soil and the same was dug out by the appellant after which it

was seized vide Exhibit-2 seizure list in presence of Jiten Praja, Debaru Praja and Gautam Praja (PW-9).

Dr. Tarun Kumar Das (PW-6) conducted post mortem examination on the dead body ofMansai Praja. He found several sharp cut injuries on face,

ear, eyes, mouth, neck, right frontal region, right parietal region, left hand fingers being severed except the thumb, right hand thumb being cut and

lateral aspect on right thigh. He opined that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon. His post

mortem examination report is Exhibit 2. Mrinal Kumar Das after completing the investigation submitted Exhibit-7 charge-sheet against the appellant.

During trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. But the trialcourt relying upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution

especially Jiten Praja, Debaru Praja and Gautam Praja, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. The trial court mainly relied upon on the

seizure of the dao at the instance of appellant and extra-Judicial confession made by him before the police and in presence of Debaru Praja.

Ms.K Das, learned Amicus Curiae has argued that the chain of circumstances is notcomplete and the extra-judicial confessions made by the

appellant before Debaru Praja is not admissible in evidence since those were made while he was in police custody. The learned Public Prosecutor

fairly conceded the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant but argued that the appellant led to the discovery of the weapon of

assault and this being a conduct of the appellant, the trial court rightly ordered the conviction and sentence.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we find thatthe chain of circumstances as enumerated by the trial court is

not complete and there is a glaring missing link.

The death of Mansai Praja is not in dispute. The post mortem report suggesting thecause of his death is also not disputed.

So far the seizure of the dao is concerned, even if it was seized from the house of the appellant, the same would not automatically go to show that

the seized weapon was used in committing the offence. There was no blood stain on the weapon. The Investigating Officer has admitted during his

cross-examination that the weapon was not sent to the forensic laboratory. In our view, Dao is a common tool in every village household and as such

the fact that a Dao was seized from the house of the appellant would not go to prove that he is guilty for committing the offence. Besides, there is no

disclosure statement also to that effect and the same was not exhibited. Further, it is also doubtful as to from where the dao was seized. All the

seizure witnesses namely Jiten Praja and Gautam Baruah have deposed that police took their signatures in blank papers. Though, Debaru Praja

deposed that the appellant dug out the dao in his presence and also confessed about his guilt in presence of the police, the so called confession is not

admissible in evidence since the same was made in the custody of police. Again, Gautam Baruah admitted during his cross-examination that the police

did not show him the dao which they seized. As such, the seizure of dao from the house of the appellant is not a circumstance/good evidence to link

the appellant with the crime.

It is the categorical evidence of the investigating officer Mrinal Kumar Das that he came to know about the involvement of the appellant in the

offence from witnesses. However, we did not find any such statement of any witness in the police case diary incriminating the appellant. Apparently,

it is seen that the appellant was arrested on suspicion.

Since there is no eye witness and the prosecution story is completely based oncircumstantial evidence where the chain of circumstances is not

complete and there are missing links as well as the confessional statement was made by the appellant while he was in the custody of police, we are of

the considered view that neither there is enough circumstantial evidence nor admissible extra-judicial confession of the appellant to point the finger of

guilt towards him. In view of the above, we hold the appellant not guilty and acquit him of the offence charged.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned conviction and sentence ofappellant are set aside.