GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON BABLU BHUYAN V/S THE STATE OF ASSAM

GUWAHATI, India, April 7 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on March 5:

1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel and APP, Assam, appearing for the State.

2. The appellant has put to challenge the impugned judgement dated 26/04/2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sivasagar in Sessions Case No. 269 (S-N)/2017, by which the appellant has been convicted under section 302/201 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.

3. The appellant's counsel submits that the entire case of the prosecution for convicting the appellant, is due to the fact that the present appellant Bablu Bhuyan and the co-accused Dilip Bhuyan were seen carrying the dead body of the deceased by PW-4 from a distance of only 5 feet. As the circumstantial evidence against the appellant and Dilip Bhuyan was the same regarding the death of the deceased, the conviction and sentence of both the co-accused should have been similar. However, only the present appellant has been convicted and sentenced under section 302/201 IPC. On the other hand, the co-accused Dilip Bhuyan has been convicted and sentenced only under section 201 IPC. He submits that in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Yogarani Vs. State by the Inspector of Police reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2609, the Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other, when there is similar or identical evidence of the eye witnesses against the two accused persons, ascribing the same or similar roles. The Supreme Court in the above case held that the cases of both the accused persons will have to be covered by the principle of Parity. The learned Amicus Curiae thus submits that when the co-accused Dilip Bhuyan has been convicted and sentenced only under section 201 IPC, the appellant should have also been convicted and sentenced only under 201 IPC.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the incriminating evidence of PW-4, showing the appellant and Dilip Bhuyan to be carrying the dead body of the deceased, has not been put to the appellant in his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. He accordingly submits that the procedural safeguard given to accused for providing him an opportunity to explain the evidence adduced against him has been lost and that the said incriminating material not having been put to the appellant, the conviction on the basis of PW-4's evidence that he saw the appellant and Dilip Bhuyan carrying the deceased, is not sustainable in law. In this regard, he has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vaibhav Vs. The State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. 1643/2012]. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that in view of the above, the matter may be remanded back to the learned Trial Court to direct retrial of the case, from the stage of recording of the examination of the appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=QnBUxJ6a3gIx%2B5SFrUiAoDFF25Q1UDZnDmLKPZyyCkYZNEvw5ty%2BcWE3DC08R%2FVc&caseno=CRL.A(J)/47/2021&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010199372021&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.