Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The genesis of the case was that on 16.03.2014, at about 09:30 pm, the appellant called Gopi Hembram (hereinafter also referred to as the victim or the deceased) and asked him to come out of his residence and repeatedly attacked him with a dao. Gopin Hembram instantly succumbed to his injuries, while the appellant fled from the place of occurrence (PO, for short). Gopin's wife, Smt Marangmai Tudu raised alarm and the villagers gathered at the PO. On the following day, i.e., on 07.03.2014, Smt Marangmai Tudu (hereinafter also referred to as the informant) lodged an FIR with the Police, which was registered as Udalguri PS Case No. 330 of 2014, under Sections 448/302 IPC.

4. The Investigating Officer (IO, for short) embarked upon the investigation. He went to the place of occurrence and prepared the sketch map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Inquest was held and the body was forwarded for autopsy. The IO seized one blood-stained dao (machete kind of weapon) with a bamboo handle and forwarded the same for chemical examination.

Page No.# 3/20

5. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the appellant under Sections 448/302 IPC.

Page No.# 5/20

11. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that this case rests squarely on the evidence of only one eye-witness, i.e., the wife of the deceased. There are too many contradictions and the evidence is inconsistent. Although blood sample was lifted and forwarded for chemical examination, there was no match to connect the appellant to the crime.

12. It is further submitted that it has emerged through the evidence that the victim's 10 year old daughter had witnessed the incident but she was not produced as a witness. The weapon of offence was not exhibited or shown to the Medical Officer to affirm if any injury sustained by the deceased could have been caused by the weapon of offence seized in connection with this case. Several contradictions were elicited through the cross-examination of the witnesses, as per Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (the Evidence Act, for short) qua Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC, for short), and the contradictions have been confirmed through the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer. These contradictions exonerate the appellant. The time of the incident mentioned by different witnesses are not similar. The related witnesses have only supported the prosecution case, whereas the evidence of the other witnesses, who are not related can be termed as hearsay evidence. The appellant has been erroneously convicted under Section 448 IPC, as both the appellant and the deceased are brothers and they reside in the same premises, which is clearly revealed by the sketch map exhibited in this case. A person cannot be held to be guilty of offence of criminal trespass when he is found in his own campus or premises. No mens rea could be attributed as the evidence does not reveal earlier animosity or acrimonious relationship between the brothers.

56. As the incident took place within the precincts of the deceased and the appellant's house, it is held that no offence under Section 448 of IPC has been made out and the appellant is acquitted from the charges under Section 448 of IPC. However the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of IPC is upheld.

57. In terms of the above observation, this Criminal Appeal is disposed of.

58. Send back the Trial Court Records.

57. We appreciate the assistance provided by the learned Amicus Curiae and recommend for payment of the honorarium.