Gauhati HC Upholds Life Terms For Two Convicted Of Hacking Man After He Went To Ask About Shop Theft

Saiful Islam was killed at the house of Taleb Ali after he and Mofidul Islam went there to enquire about a theft.

The appellants were charged under Sections 302/34 IPC. The Sessions Court convicted both appellants and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

On appeal, they challenged, among other matters, the reliability of the eyewitness evidence, proof of common intention, non-recovery of the weapon, absence of motive, and the conduct of the inquest by police.

The High Court considered the testimony of eyewitness PW-2, the medical evidence, and the appellants’ plea of alibi.

Section 302 IPC prescribes punishment for murder, and Section 34 IPC imposes joint liability where a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention.

Under Anil Phukan v. State of Assam, (1993) 3 SCC 282, conviction may rest on a sole eyewitness if the witness is reliable; where the witness is not wholly reliable, material particulars generally require independent corroboration.

Nankaunoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2016) 3 SCC 317, and State of Rajasthan v. Arjun Singh, (2011) 9 SCC 115, support the principle that non-recovery of a weapon does not necessarily defeat a prosecution supported by reliable oral and medical evidence.

Motive is of greater significance in a case based solely on circumstantial evidence than where reliable eyewitness evidence exists.

Under Section 464 CrPC, an error or omission in a charge does not invalidate the finding or sentence unless it occasioned a failure of justice.

The Court also relied on Jagadish Deori v. State of Assam, Karimul Islam v. State of Assam and Ranjan Pegu @ Rajani v. State of Assam concerning proof of the accused’s acts and common intention.

The Court found PW-2’s eyewitness account reliable and consistent with his Section 164 CrPC statement, the post-mortem evidence of two incised wounds to the deceased’s neck, and the medical evidence of PW-2’s injuries.

It held that the evidence that both appellants struck the deceased with a dao established their participation and common intention; the absence of a weapon recovery or proof of motive did not displace that evidence.

The police-conducted inquest did not vitiate the prosecution case, and the appellants’ unsupported plea of alibi failed.

The omission of Section 34 from the charge against appellant no. 1 did not invalidate the conviction because no resulting failure of justice was shown.

The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court record was directed to be returned.