GUWAHATI, India, July 11 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on June 11:
1. The present criminal appeal under Section 415, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNNS], 2023 is directed against a Judgment dated 12.12.2024 and an Order on Sentence dated 19.12.2024 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Charaideo at Sonari in Sessions [S-C] Case no. 12/2014. Three accused persons faced the trial in Sessions [S-C] Case no. 12/2014 and they were :
[i] Sanjib Paul [hereinafter referred to as 'A-1', at places, for easy reference];
[ii] Sahabuddin Ahmed @ Jun Ahmed [hereinafter referred to as 'A-2' or 'the appellant no. 1', at places, for easy reference]; and
[iii] Rakibuddin Ahmed @ Bhaiti Ahmed [hereinafter referred to as 'A-3' of 'the appellant no. 2', at places, for easy reference].
2. By the Judgment and the Order on Sentence, all the three accused persons have been convicted for the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code [IPC] read with Section 34, IPC. They have also been convicted for the offence under Section 201, IPC read with Section 34, IPC. After hearing the convicts on the point of sentence, the two appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine each, to undergo simple imprisonment for another three months each under Section 302, IPC read with Section 34, IPC. It has been ordered that out of the period of sentence of life imprisonment, ten years shall be rigorous imprisonment and rest of the sentence period, shall be simple imprisonment. For the offence under Section 201, IPC read with Section 34, IPC, the two appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years. It has been ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. We have heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel & Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam assisted by Ms. P. Das, learned counsel for the respondent State.
4. Mr. Kataki, learned counsel appearing for the two appellants has submitted that in order to bring home the charges against the two appellants, A-2 and A-3 and the other accused, A-1, the prosecution side examined twenty-one nos. of witnesses and exhibited seventeen nos. of documents. It is apparent from the prosecution evidence that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The learned Sessions Judge, Charaideo at Sonari ['the Trial Court', for short] in Paragraph 40 of the impugned Judgment, enumerated the circumstances which, according to it, had been established by the prosecution to hold that the chain of circumstances was complete to bring home the charges against the appellants.
4.1. The Trial Court has placed reliance in a statement of a person, exhibited as Ext.- P-8, by holding that the said statement recorded under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ['the CrPC' or 'the Code', for short] is admissible in evidence. Mr. Kataki has submitted that the learned Trial Court had erred in holding that the circumstances indicated in Paragraph 40 of the impugned Judgment had been established. He has submitted that the conclusion of guilt drawn by the Trial Court was based on inadmissible evidence. Moreover, the statement of the person recorded under Section 164, CrPC cannot be made admissible on the premise that the person had died during the pendency of the trial. The rule of evidence contained in Section 33 of the Evidence Act requires that the adverse party should have the right and the opportunity to cross-examine such a witness.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x10P%2FuMliFlVCysBQZopBAavIRZrpMeWZ5i1MDqXt8oh&caseno=Crl.A./80/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010009962025&state_code=6&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
