Gambang Basumatary Vs. State of Assam - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1172882
CourtGuwahati High Court
Decided OnFeb-18-2014
Case NumberCriminal Appeal 93 (J) of 2010
JudgeK. SREEDHAR RAO & P. K. SAIKIA
AppellantGambang Basumatary
RespondentState of Assam
Excerpt:
sreedhar rao,j. 1. the material-facts of the prosecution case disclose that one gunjet alias genjur basumatary is deceased. he was domestic help in the house of one moniram basumatary. deceased was found missing from 27.1.2008. employer had lodged a missing complaint with the police on 29.1.2008. dead body was traced on 29.1.2008 near the aie river. the death was caused by drowning. police registered a case and sent the dead body for post-mortem. the post-mortem report discloses that the death is on account of drowning. father of the deceased had lodged a complaint with the police about the death. 2. it appears that the accused persons have been apprehended and presented before members of the all bodo students union(absu), to whom they made extra-judicial confession in causing the death and later they have been handed over to the police for further action. after the investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the accused persons under section 302 of the ipc. 3. the trial court on the basis of the extra-judicial confession made by the accused persons to members of the absu, who have been examined as pw-2, pw-3, pw-6 and pw-7, and the post-mortem report, has convicted the accused persons under section 302 of the ipc. 4. the counsel for the appellant submits that there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to show how the accused were produced before members of the students union. it is argued that on account of fear and intimidation there is a likelihood of involuntary extrajudicial confession of guilt, except that, there is nothing to corroborate the material placed by the prosecution to prove the guilt. 5. upon a thorough consideration of the evidence we find that the evidence of pw-3, a member of the students union, discloses that they have summoned the accused persons and made enquires: there is no material placed to show how the accused were found to be suspects for which they were summoned for interrogation. 6. the contention that on account of fear and physical harm there could have been involuntary extrajudicial confession to members of the students union cannot be brushed aside. except this discrepant circumstance and the extrajudicial confession there is nothing to prove the guilt of the accused/appellants. in that view of the matter the order of conviction is set aside. the appeal is allowed. appellants be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. operative part of the order be communicated to the trial court and the jail authorities. 7. the fee of the amicus curiae is fixed at rupees seven thousand, which will be paid to him by the state.
Judgment:

Sreedhar Rao,J.

1. The material-facts of the prosecution case disclose that one Gunjet alias Genjur Basumatary is deceased. He was domestic help in the house of one Moniram Basumatary. Deceased was found missing from 27.1.2008. Employer had lodged a missing complaint with the police on 29.1.2008. Dead body was traced on 29.1.2008 near the Aie river. The death was caused by drowning. Police registered a case and sent the dead body for post-mortem. The post-mortem report discloses that the death is on account of drowning. Father of the deceased had lodged a complaint with the police about the death.

2. It appears that the accused persons have been apprehended and presented before members of the All Bodo Students Union(ABSU), to whom they made extra-judicial confession in causing the death and later they have been handed over to the police for further action. After the investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the accused persons under section 302 of the IPC.

3. The trial court on the basis of the extra-judicial confession made by the accused persons to members of the ABSU, who have been examined as PW-2, PW-3, PW-6 and PW-7, and the post-mortem report, has convicted the accused persons under section 302 of the IPC.

4. The counsel for the appellant submits that there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to show how the accused were produced before members of the students union. It is argued that on account of fear and intimidation there is a likelihood of involuntary extrajudicial confession of guilt, except that, there is nothing to corroborate the material placed by the prosecution to prove the guilt.

5. Upon a thorough consideration of the evidence we find that the evidence of PW-3, a member of the students union, discloses that they have summoned the accused persons and made enquires: there is no material placed to show how the accused were found to be suspects for which they were summoned for interrogation.

6. The contention that on account of fear and physical harm there could have been involuntary extrajudicial confession to members of the students union cannot be brushed aside. Except this discrepant circumstance and the extrajudicial confession there is nothing to prove the guilt of the accused/appellants. In that view of the matter the order of conviction is set aside. The appeal is allowed. Appellants be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. Operative part of the order be communicated to the trial court and the jail authorities.

7. The fee of the amicus curiae is fixed at rupees seven thousand, which will be paid to him by the State.