CASE TITLE – Abdul Sukkur v. The State of Assam
CASE NUMBER – Criminal Appeal [J] no. 84/2017
DATED ON – 22.05.2024
QUORUM – Justice Manish Choudhury & Justice Robin Phukan
FACTS OF THE CASE
The accused-appellant had been charged with uxoricide. In order to bring home the charge of murder under Section 302, IPC, Both sides had examined 7 [seven] nos. of witnesses viz. [i] P.W.1 – Mahabbat Ali; [ii] P.W.2 – Rahima Begum; [iii] P.W.3 – Sahab Uddin; [iv] P.W.4 – Dr. Zakir Hussain Laskar; [v] P.W.5 – Abdul Mannan; [vi] P.W.6 – Samsul Islam; and [vii] P.W.7 – Ashim Ranjan Das. In addition, 7 [seven] nos. of documents were exhibited and those documents were – [i] Ext.-1 – First Information Report; [ii] Ext.-2 – Seizure list; [iii] Ext.-3 – PostMortem Examination Report; [iv] Ext.-4 – Inquest Report; [v] Ext.-5 – Sketch Map of the place of occurrence; [vi] Ext.-6 – Charge Sheet; and [vii] Ext.-7 – Certified copy of General Diary Entry. Two material exhibits viz. [i] Mat.Ext.-1 – Spade; and [ii] Mat.Ext.-2 – Broken lance, were also exhibited. P.W.1 informed over phone that in the previous night, his co-villager viz. Abdul Sukkur, that is, the accused killed his wife by assaulting her and the deadbody was lying inside his house. The I.O. of the case, P.W.7 commenced the inquest on the deadbody of the deceased, Jamila Begum at the place of occurrence at 11-30 a.m. and completed the same at 12-30 p.m. vide Ext.-4, Inquest Report. In Ext.-7, Inquest Report, it was described that the deadbody was lying in a sleeping position inside her dwelling house with cut marks on her head and knee. Ext.-7, Inquest Report was signed by P.W.1, Mahabbat Ali and P.W.3, Sahab Uddin.
ISSUE
Whether the evidence on record is adequate to point towards the guilt of the Accused-Appellant.
CONTENTIONS BY THE APPELLANT
The Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused-appellant submitted that out of the 7 Nos. of prosecution witnesses, only one witness, that is, P.W.2 appeared to be present at the place of occurrence in and around the time when the incident had happened. P.W.2 and two other prosecution witnesses, that is, P.W.3 and P.W.5 were declared hostile by the prosecution. She stated that though the prosecution side had cross-examined the three of them, that is, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5, but none of them were confronted with their previous statements so as to prove any contradiction with their testimonies adduced before the court vis-à-vis their previous statements. The learned Amicus Curiae had further contended 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. None of the prosecution witnesses had attributed the act of assault to the accused-appellant and as such, the learned trial court had erred to reach a finding that the prosecution had brought the charge for the offence of murder beyond all reasonable doubts.
CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT
The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State submitted that the entire testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who were declared hostile by the prosecution, were not washed off the records altogether. The remaining parts of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses – P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5, who were declared hostile, can be relied upon along with other corroborating evidence if such remaining parts of their testimonies are found creditworthy. The remaining parts of the testimonies of the hostile witnesses were found reliable enough to consider with other evidence/materials on record and stated that the learned trial court after proper appreciation of the entire evidence/materials on record, had rightly arrived at the finding on the charge of murder. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that from the evidence/materials on record, it had emerged that there was no possibility of any third person to commit the crime, and thus, it was the accused-appellant who had, in all probability, committed the murder of his wife.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The Gauhati High Court stated that on a meticulous examination of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, they found that none of the witnesses had stated that he or she had witnessed the incident or any act of assault. It is also settled that merely because a witness is declared hostile his entire evidence is to be excluded from consideration. 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. They further pointed out that on a combined analysis of the above events stated to have occurred in the night intervening 29.11.2015 and 30.11.2015, as deposed by the afore-mentioned prosecution witnesses, it is found that none of them had made any specific mention about the time at which the incident inside the house of the accused had occurred though they said that it was in that night the incident had occurred. In view of such evidence, it is difficult to reach a finding as about the specific time of occurrence of the murderous assault on the deceased. The Hon’ble High Court stated that 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, and in the absence of any specific evidence as regards the time of occurrence, it was difficult for them to hold that the incident had occurred at a specific time in the night intervening 29.11.2015 and 30.11.2015. P.W.2 was the only witness who was present inside the house along with her parents and who had testified, and in her testimony, did not attribute anything adverse to the accused. The other prosecution witnesses were post-occurrence witnesses who did not witness the act of murderous assault on the deceased. It had also not emerged from the evidence/materials on record that the relationship between the accused and the deceased was not cordial. The Hon’ble High Court stated that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes vital significance and it is considered to be a link in the chain, but no evidence was led by the prosecution on motive in the instant case. After which, The Hon’ble High Court held that the accused-appellant’s Criminal Appeal succeeds, because on appreciation of the evidence/materials on record in its entirety, it was not possible for them to hold that the prosecution was able to lead evidence which had unerringly pointed towards the guilt of the accused in respect of the murderous of assault on his wife during the relevant night by establishing all the circumstances conclusively and completely leaving no gap left in the chain to hold that it was only the accused who had perpetrated the crime and to rule out any possibility of any other person committing the crime. And in this circumstance, the benefit of the doubt has to go to the accused.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao
