Chandra Bonia Vs. State of Assam
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 2006
[From the Judgment & Order dated 24.08.2001 of the High Court of Gauhati at Gauhati in Crl. A. No.170 of 2000]
[From the Judgment & Order dated 24.08.2001 of the High Court of Gauhati at Gauhati in Crl. A. No.170 of 2000]
Petitioner: Chandra Bonia
Respondent: State of Assam
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 2006
[From the Judgment & Order dated 24.08.2001 of the High Court of Gauhati at Gauhati in Crl. A. No.170 of 2000]
[From the Judgment & Order dated 24.08.2001 of the High Court of Gauhati at Gauhati in Crl. A. No.170 of 2000]
Judges: Harjit Singh Bedi & Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 30, 2011
Appearances:
Appearances
Mr. Praneet Ranjan, (A.C.), Mr. Pranay Ranjan, Mr. Hemant Kumar Yadav, Mr. Rajesh Mishra, Advocates for the Appellant(s).
Mr. Avijit Roy, M/s. Corporate Law Group, Advocates for the Respondent(s).
Mr. Praneet Ranjan, (A.C.), Mr. Pranay Ranjan, Mr. Hemant Kumar Yadav, Mr. Rajesh Mishra, Advocates for the Appellant(s).
Mr. Avijit Roy, M/s. Corporate Law Group, Advocates for the Respondent(s).
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
Penal Code, 1860
Section 302 – Double murder – Conviction under Section 302 by both the courts below – Sole eye-witness died and rest two PWs declared hostile – Recovery of weapon at the instance of the accused by PW 12 – Conviction based on extra-judicial confession made to PW7 – Whether conviction can be based solely on extra-judicial confession. Held, though it is a very weak piece of evidence, there is no reason to doubt the evidence of PW7. PW7 came out of her house at the same time when the accused left deceased’s house with dao, and thus, he suspected that PW 7 must have identified him and so made a confessional statement under this wrong notion. Moreover, weapon was recovered at his instance. Appeal dismissed.
Penal Code, 1860
Section 302 – Double murder – Conviction under Section 302 by both the courts below – Sole eye-witness died and rest two PWs declared hostile – Recovery of weapon at the instance of the accused by PW 12 – Conviction based on extra-judicial confession made to PW7 – Whether conviction can be based solely on extra-judicial confession. Held, though it is a very weak piece of evidence, there is no reason to doubt the evidence of PW7. PW7 came out of her house at the same time when the accused left deceased’s house with dao, and thus, he suspected that PW 7 must have identified him and so made a confessional statement under this wrong notion. Moreover, weapon was recovered at his instance. Appeal dismissed.
Held:
It is true that an extra judicial confession is a very weak piece of evidence and ordinarily a conviction solely on the basis of such evidence cannot be maintained. But a reading of the evidence of PW 7 clearly reveals that her house was about 100 yards away from the murder site and that when she had come out from her house to throw the starch out of the cooked rice, she had seen three persons running away from the house of the deceased and that a little later, the appellant – accused had come to her house carrying a dao and addressing her as Didi had told her that he had murdered two persons and cautioned her not to disclose this fact to anybody otherwise she too would be killed, and on account of fear, she and her husband had left their residence and shifted to some other place. We also see that the statement of PW 7 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C is almost in identical terms. It is therefore evident that the extra judicial confession was made in a different background in as much that as the appellant suspected that he had been identified by the witness he had returned to warn her not to divulge any information to anyone. The very proximity of the murder and the extra judicial confession made to PW 7 speaks volumes as to its authenticity. We also see from the record that the alleged murder weapon, a dao, had been recovered at the instance of the appellant. It is true that the independent witnesses of the recovery have not supported the prosecution, but we have no reason to doubt the evidence of PW 12 on this score. (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal against the conviction has been filed against the concurrent findings recorded by the trial court and the High Court for a double murder committed on 7th October,1990 for which the appellant was sentenced for life on two counts, both sentences to run concurrently.
2. As per the prosecution story, Somra Munda and Agnash Munda, the father and brother of the first informant were murdered during the night of 7th October, 1990 in their house. The First Information Report was lodged by Chukhnu Munda at Police Station Marian on the 8th October, 1990 alleging that during his absence from the house some persons had murdered his father and younger brother. During the course of the investigation, the police recorded the statement of various witnesses including PW 1 Pradip Das and PW 2 Niran Bonia (who were both declared hostile), PW 5, the Medical Officer who had conducted the post-mortem on the two dead bodies, PW 6 the informant and PW 7 Baloni Bawri, who was a neighbour of the deceased, and to whom the accused had made an extra judicial confession on the date of the murder itself and PW 12 the Investigating Officer who was also a witness to the recovery of the murder weapon at the instance of the accused. The trial court and the High Court have both noticed that as the solitary eye witness had died and the other two material witnesses PW 1 and PW 2 had been declared hostile, the prosecution story rested exclusively on the confession made by the accused to PW 7 and the factum of recovery of the dao at the instance of the accused before PW 12 the Investigating Officer.
3. At the hearing before us today, Mr. Praneet Ranjan, the learned Amicus Curiae for the accused –
appellant has argued that the only evidence against the accused was the extra judicial confession made before PW 7 and as this evidence was a weak kind of evidence, the conviction of the appellant could not be maintained. He has further submitted that police had, in fact, used third degree methods and tortured and threatened the witnesses to give false evidence and as such the case against the appellant appeared to be a concocted one.
4. Mr. Avijit Roy, the learned counsel for the State of Assam, however, has supported the judgments of the courts below.
5. It is true that an extra judicial confession is a very weak piece of evidence and ordinarily a conviction solely on the basis of such evidence cannot be maintained. The confession, made by the appellant to PW 7, however, falls in a different category. A reading of the evidence of PW 7 clearly reveals that her house was about 100 yards away from the murder site and that when she had come out from her house to throw the starch out of the cooked rice, she had seen three persons running away from the house of the deceased and that a little later, the appellant – accused had come to her house carrying a dao and addressing her as Didi had told her that he had murdered two persons and cautioned her not to disclose this fact to anybody otherwise she too would be killed, and on account of fear, she and her husband had left their residence and shifted to some other place. We also see that the statement of PW 7 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C is almost in identical terms. It is therefore evident that the extra judicial confession was made in a different background in as much that as the appellant suspected that he had been identified by the witness he had returned to warn her not to divulge any information to anyone. The very proximity of the murder and the extra judicial confession made to PW 7 speaks volumes as to its authenticity. We also see from the record that the alleged murder weapon, a dao, had been recovered at the instance of the appellant. It is true that the independent witnesses of the recovery have not supported the prosecution, but we have no reason to doubt the evidence of PW 12 on this score.
6. On an overall assessment of the facts the prosecution story is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
7. We thus find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.
8. The fee of the Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs.7000/-.
1. This appeal against the conviction has been filed against the concurrent findings recorded by the trial court and the High Court for a double murder committed on 7th October,1990 for which the appellant was sentenced for life on two counts, both sentences to run concurrently.
2. As per the prosecution story, Somra Munda and Agnash Munda, the father and brother of the first informant were murdered during the night of 7th October, 1990 in their house. The First Information Report was lodged by Chukhnu Munda at Police Station Marian on the 8th October, 1990 alleging that during his absence from the house some persons had murdered his father and younger brother. During the course of the investigation, the police recorded the statement of various witnesses including PW 1 Pradip Das and PW 2 Niran Bonia (who were both declared hostile), PW 5, the Medical Officer who had conducted the post-mortem on the two dead bodies, PW 6 the informant and PW 7 Baloni Bawri, who was a neighbour of the deceased, and to whom the accused had made an extra judicial confession on the date of the murder itself and PW 12 the Investigating Officer who was also a witness to the recovery of the murder weapon at the instance of the accused. The trial court and the High Court have both noticed that as the solitary eye witness had died and the other two material witnesses PW 1 and PW 2 had been declared hostile, the prosecution story rested exclusively on the confession made by the accused to PW 7 and the factum of recovery of the dao at the instance of the accused before PW 12 the Investigating Officer.
3. At the hearing before us today, Mr. Praneet Ranjan, the learned Amicus Curiae for the accused –
appellant has argued that the only evidence against the accused was the extra judicial confession made before PW 7 and as this evidence was a weak kind of evidence, the conviction of the appellant could not be maintained. He has further submitted that police had, in fact, used third degree methods and tortured and threatened the witnesses to give false evidence and as such the case against the appellant appeared to be a concocted one.
4. Mr. Avijit Roy, the learned counsel for the State of Assam, however, has supported the judgments of the courts below.
5. It is true that an extra judicial confession is a very weak piece of evidence and ordinarily a conviction solely on the basis of such evidence cannot be maintained. The confession, made by the appellant to PW 7, however, falls in a different category. A reading of the evidence of PW 7 clearly reveals that her house was about 100 yards away from the murder site and that when she had come out from her house to throw the starch out of the cooked rice, she had seen three persons running away from the house of the deceased and that a little later, the appellant – accused had come to her house carrying a dao and addressing her as Didi had told her that he had murdered two persons and cautioned her not to disclose this fact to anybody otherwise she too would be killed, and on account of fear, she and her husband had left their residence and shifted to some other place. We also see that the statement of PW 7 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C is almost in identical terms. It is therefore evident that the extra judicial confession was made in a different background in as much that as the appellant suspected that he had been identified by the witness he had returned to warn her not to divulge any information to anyone. The very proximity of the murder and the extra judicial confession made to PW 7 speaks volumes as to its authenticity. We also see from the record that the alleged murder weapon, a dao, had been recovered at the instance of the appellant. It is true that the independent witnesses of the recovery have not supported the prosecution, but we have no reason to doubt the evidence of PW 12 on this score.
6. On an overall assessment of the facts the prosecution story is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
7. We thus find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.
8. The fee of the Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs.7000/-.
