Murder appeal against conviction under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence. The High Court found the chain complete through motive from an earlier quarrel, presence near the place of occurrence, bloodstained hands seen by a shopkeeper, uncorroborated alibi, and non-explanation under Section 313 CrPC. Appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/55
GAHC040002942023
2026:GAU-AP:220
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.A./9/2023
Sagar Sobar Resident of Balukpong near Khola Camp, Assam Boundary, PO/PS Balukpong, West Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF AP and Anr. Through the Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh.
2:Nyakam Rangmo Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Lt. Mera Rangmo Village Kholacamp Bhalukpong PO/PS Bhalukpong West Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh
Advocate for the Petitioner : Nikita Danggen, Oken Duggong,P Siga,Y Dagiam,K Chotton,Honi Tana Tara
Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Gimi Tarak Amicus Curiae for R-2
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA
Date on which judgment was reserved : 10.12.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 09.03.2026
Page No.# 2/55
Whether the pronouncement is of the : Yes operative part of the judgment?
Whether the full judgment has been : NA pronounced?
JUDGMENT AND ORDER(CAV)
(Anjan Moni Kalita, J.)
Heard Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. G. Tarak, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2.
2. The instant appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C assailing the Judgment and Order of conviction under Section 302 of the IPC, dated 30.04.2021, passed by the learned District and Sessions’ Judge, Bomdila, West Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh in Sessions Case No. 05/2019, convicting the Appellant to undergo life imprisonment, out of which the convicted Appellant shall spend 10 (ten) years under Rigorous Imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, the Appellant shall undergo three (3) months' imprisonment.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 19.02.2017 at 09:00 hours, a written complaint was received from one Shri Nyokam Rangmo, S/o Late Mera Rangmo of Khola Camp, Bhalukpong, to the effect that on the previous night, i.e. 18.02.2017 between 7:15 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., one Rakesh Beyong was murdered at Khola Camp and he strongly suspected Shri Ajit Rangmo, Shri Binglu Takio, Arun Chetry, Sagar Adivasi, and Bikash Boro to be the persons behind the murder. Upon receipt of the above information, a case was
Page No.# 3/55
registered vide Bhalukpong P.S. Case No. 04/17 under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and was endorsed to Inspector Sri E. Ette for investigation. Thereafter, the same was re-endorsed to SI Duto Bagra for further investigation, vide Order No. BDL/CR-43/2017 dated 18th September, 2017.
4. During the course of investigation, the place of occurrence was visited, a rough sketch map was drawn and photographs were taken by the Investigating Officer. Soil, a twig with blood stains, and blood samples were collected from the spot and from the dead body of the deceased. One grey shirt and white ganjee and a red-violet shirt were also seized from the possession of the deceased and suspect Sagar Sobar (Adivasi), respectively. The collected blood stains, blood samples and seized clothes were sent to the FSL for chemical analysis. An inquest over the dead body was conducted and it was forwarded to the Community Health Centre, Bhalukpong, for post-mortem examination. Thereafter, the post-mortem was conducted and the dead body was handed over to the relatives for the last rites. The post-mortem report was received wherein Dr. Tage Neha opined that the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to excessive bleeding following multiple stab injuries on the chest, back, neck, and face.
5. The suspects, namely Sri Ajit Rangmo, Sri Takio Binglu, Sri Mintu Boruah, Sri Bikash Mahalia, Sri Anand Topno, Sri Arun Rai, and Sri Sunil Jebisow were arrested on 19.02.2017 and produced before the Executive Magistrate, Bhalukpong on 20.02.2017 and were remanded to police custody for seven days except Sri Sunil Jebisow and Anand Topno, who were released on the same day by the Executive Magistrate as they were juveniles. Sri Ajit Rangmo was released on 21.03.2017 on bail by the learned Court of ADSJ, Bomdila. The
Page No.# 4/55
other arrestees, namely Sri Takio Binglu, Sri Arun Rai, Sri Mintu Boruah and Sri Bikash Mahalia were released on bail on 23.03.2017 by the learned Court of ADSJ, Bomdila. On 23.02.2017, the prime suspect, Sri Sagar Sobar was arrested.
6. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed ChargeSheet No. 08/2017 dated 19.12.2017 against the Appellant, i.e., Sagar Sobar. However, the police did not charge-sheet Sri Mintu Boruah, Sri Bikash Mahalia, Sri Ajit Rangmo, Sri Takio Binglu, Sri Anand Topno, Sri Arun Rai, and Sri Sunil Jebisow. The police named thirteen (13) PWs in the charge-sheet to be examined.
7. Upon the appearance of the Appellant before the Trial Court, charges under Sections 302/201 of the IPC were read over to the accused appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8. The prosecution adduced evidence of seventeen (17) PWs and the Appellant adduced one DW. The examination of the Appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C was conducted on 20.01.2021. During the examination, the Appellant denied the commission of the offence but admitted certain facts of the case, for example, visiting the shop of PW-8, Narayan Sharma and departing from the shop of Ajit Rangmo (PW-5) in the opposite direction of the road. The Appellant admitted that a quarrel had taken place between him and the deceased during the day before the incident at Atobong. After examination of the PWs and DW and hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2021, convicting the Appellant to life imprisonment, out of which he shall spend 10 years under Rigorous Imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment, he shall
Page No.# 5/55
undergo three (3) months’ imprisonment.
9. Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the Appellant, submits that the evidence on record does not warrant the conviction and sentence of the Appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and as such, the conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside. She submits that the instant case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, and the chain of circumstances should be so complete that there is no room for doubt that it is the Appellant and only the Appellant who committed the offence. However, in the instant case, none of the circumstances sought to be proved against the Appellant has been proved. She submits that the learned Trial Court failed to establish that as not a single PW made any adverse statement against the Appellant regarding assaulting the deceased. She submits that the timeline as demonstrated by the prosecution through PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, and PW-13 is contradictory, which makes the prosecution story unreliable and untruthful. She submits that only the fact that the deceased was most likely killed by a sharp weapon has been proved through PW-7 (the doctor who conducted the post-mortem), but the more significant part, i.e., the weapon of offence, was never recovered even though it was allegedly thrown in a public place, namely, the Sunday market area where the market was held the very next day. Therefore, the non-recovery of the weapon is crucial to the prosecution story and raises serious doubt. She further submits that the place of occurrence as mentioned by PW-15 is shown in a reconstructed map of the scene of crime. However, none of the witnesses were shown the said map, though in their depositions they merely stated that the place of occurrence was near the house of PW-1. Surprisingly, the house of PW1 is not shown in the map and only the location of PW-8 is shown. Therefore, the place of occurrence has not been properly proved.
Page No.# 6/55
10. Ms. Danggen, learned counsel further submits that no apparent motive has been proved in the instant case. The prosecution sought to prove motive by stating that the Appellant and the deceased had a quarrel at Atobong, where the deceased humiliated him. However, all relevant PWs stated that the dispute was compromised and the departure was peaceful. It is settled law that motive alone, even if proved, cannot be the basis for conviction. She submits that the time of the incident is relevant, as evidence shows that the appellant left Bhalukpong at around 6:00 p.m., yet the prosecution argues that he was still there in between 6:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m., which was the alleged time of the incident. The timeline given by PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, and PW-13 is contradictory. PW-8 stated that the accused came to his shop at around 7:00–7:30 p.m., but he failed to identify the accused in cross-examination. No Test Identification Parade (TIP for short) was conducted. Many people visited the shop in the evening and merely because the Appellant admitted visiting the shop at around 6:00 p.m., it cannot be concluded that he was there at 7:00–7:30 p.m.
11. Ms. Danggen, learned counsel submits that during the statement of PW-4, the prosecution sought to prove that upon hearing a sound, someone was seen running away near the place of occurrence 20–25 minutes before the news of the incident. She submits that this fact was not proved, as the statement of PW3 does not support this version and, therefore, contradicts the statement of PW4. Hence, the same cannot be said to have been proved. She further submits that the alleged extra-judicial confession made by the Appellant before PW-12 (brother-in-law of the deceased) and PW-17 (his wife) cannot be taken into consideration in the instant case. She submits that from the depositions of PW12 and PW-17, it is clear that the alleged confession was made before the police, which PW-12 claims to have heard. In the case of PW-17, he is a seizure
Page No.# 7/55
witness who stated that he heard the same while the Appellant was giving his statement to the police. However, none of these witnesses made any statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C regarding this fact. She submits that this allegation was denied by the Appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. She further submits that it is a settled law that an extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and ought not to be relied upon unless it is voluntary and true, depending upon the facts and surrounding circumstances. In this connection, she relied on the case of Ramanand alias Nandlal Bharti Vs. State of UP , reported in (2023) 3 SCC 510 .
12. Ms. Danggen, learned counsel, submits that though the prosecution has made up a story against the Appellant that after the alleged commission of the incident he went absconding, the same is not proved. The prosecution relied on the statements of PW-10 (the previous I.O.) and PW-5 to contend that the Appellant absconded after the incident. The prosecution tried to prove that the Appellant came back from Mumbai after PW-5 trapped him at the behest of PW10. She submits that from the record it can be seen that PW-5 nowhere states that the Appellant came back because he was guilty, rather, PW-5 states that he came back to clear his name when he was told that he was a suspect. It is also a fact that PW-5 deposed that the Appellant went to meet his supervisor after leaving his shop. Therefore, she submits that the Appellant, in fact, did not abscond, rather, he came back to clear his name when he got to know that he had also been made a suspect. Therefore, she submits that the prosecution has failed to establish the fact of his absconding in the present case.
13. Ms. Danggen, learned counsel, submits that the prosecution has tried to rely on the circumstances allegedly appearing against the Appellant from his
Page No.# 8/55
statement made under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C regarding the blood seen on his right hand by PW-8. This circumstance, even if true, cannot be relied upon, as such, a circumstance alone, without completion of the other links, is not sufficient to convict the appellant. It is settled law that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. It is only when all other links are complete and do not suffer from any infirmity that such a circumstance can be taken as an additional link. In this connection, she relied on the case of Ramanand (Supra).
14. Ms. Danggen, learned counsel, submits that there are many lacunae in the prosecution case which show a high improbability of the Appellant having committed the offence. She submits that no materials allegedly seized by the police were ever sent for FSL examination. She further submits that no TIP was held to enable PW-8, who was previously not acquainted with the Appellant, to identify him. She submits that it has not been shown in evidence from where the alleged weapon of offence was obtained by the Appellant. She submits that it has come in evidence that the knife was thrown in the Sunday market area, where the Sunday market was held the very next day. However, there is no explanation as to how no one noticed the knife during the Sunday market despite several people visiting the market. She submits that it is highly improbable that the Appellant would have visited the shop of PW-8 during the evening hours with blood on his hands, face and neck. It is very unreasonable and unbelievable because, as per the statement of PW-10, he allegedly washed his T-shirt and threw away his long pant and thereafter, stole a long pant from the house of one Ranjan Narzari after leaving the shop of PW-8. Learned counsel submits that if the statement of PW-10 is true, then at the time of his visit to the shop of PW-8, his clothes, including his pant, must have been
Page No.# 9/55
covered in blood so as to necessitate him washing the T-shirt and throwing away the long pant in the Kameng River. It is, therefore, highly improbable that PW-8 would not have noticed such blood on his clothes.
15. Ms. Danggen, learned counsel further submits that PW-17, on whom the prosecution relies to prove the extra-judicial confession, was not put any specific question on the said point, and as such, the same cannot be relied upon. In this connection, Ms. Danggen, learned counsel, relies on the case of Asraf Ali Vs. State of Assam, reported in (2008) 16 SCC 328 , wherein it was held that where no specific question has been put by the trial court on any inculpatory material in the prosecution evidence, it would vitiate the trial.
16. Ms. Danggen, learned counsel, further submits that PW-13, the cousin brother of PW-5, Ajit Rangmo, stated that it was PW-5 who actually killed the deceased. This statement of PW-13 also casts doubt on the prosecution case. She submits that most of the prosecution witnesses, including PW-12, PW-13, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, and PW-9, opined that the Appellant was a good person and that they did not think he might have killed the deceased. On the contrary, they deposed that the deceased had criminal records and was an aggressive person. She submits that the PW-13 stated in her statement that it was likely that the deceased had enemies and that the Appellant, being of smaller stature compared to the deceased, probably could not have killed him. Therefore, she submits that the prosecution story does not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the circumstantial evidence also does not point to anything against the Appellant in the present case. Hence, she submits that the prosecution has failed to prove it’s case and therefore, the Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2021, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bomdila,
Page No.# 10/55
is liable to be set aside and quashed. She further submits that it is a settled position of law that an adverse inference can be drawn against the accused only if the incriminating material stands fully established, whether based on circumstantial evidence or otherwise, and the accused is unable to furnish any explanation for the same. In this regard, she relied on the case of Raj Kumar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 722 .
17. Ms. Danggen, learned counsel further submits that it is a settled principle of law that if two views are possible in a case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view favourable to the accused should be adopted. She submits that in the instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed to satisfy the golden test laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sharda vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 , wherein it was held that the chain of circumstances/evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that, in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused alone.
18. Under the facts and circumstances as aforesaid, she submits that the Appellant has been wrongly convicted by the learned Trial Court and that the prosecution has failed to meet the standard of proof required in a case resting on circumstantial evidence. Hence, she prayed that the instant criminal appeal may be allowed by setting aside the Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2021 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bomdila, West Kameng District.
19. On the other hand , Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, submits that through a coherent, consistent and fully corroborated chain
Page No.# 11/55
of circumstances, the prosecution has established the guilt of the Appellant, namely, Sri Sagar Sobar, under Section 302 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt in the present case. He submits that the motive of the Appellant is clear, arising from an immediate quarrel, humiliation, and threats. He further submits that the conduct of the Appellant before and after the incident is important and the prosecution has proved such conduct against the Appellant. Therefore, the circumstances in the present case form a complete and unbroken chain pointing exclusively to the guilt of the Appellant and leaving no room for any hypothesis consistent with innocence.
20. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the testimonies of PW-2, PW-3, PW-6 and PW-15 establish that the Appellant and the deceased consumed alcohol together and remained in the same group throughout the day, which fact was not denied by the Appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He submits that a strong, immediate and proximate motive is firmly established due to the quarrel, humiliation and threats arising from the fight with the deceased. He further submits that the statements of PWs-2, 3, 10, and 15 clearly establish beyond doubt that the Appellant felt humiliated and therefore, there was a strong probability of retaliation by him, which in fact occurred when he killed the deceased in the present case. He submits that the statements of the aforesaid PWs, taken together, make it clear that the repeated acts of assault, humiliation and threats by the deceased created a situation ripe for retaliatory violence. Therefore, the motive not only stands proved through consistent prosecution evidence but also stands admitted by the Appellant himself, making it an important and decisive link in the chain of circumstances pointing toward guilt. In this connection, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied on the case of Rohtash Kumar vs. State of
Page No.# 12/55
Haryana, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 434 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that if the evidence on record adequately suggests the existence of a necessary motive to commit a crime, it may be inferred that the accused, in fact, committed the same.
21. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the Last-Seen Evidence in the instant case forms a decisive link. He submits that the evidence of PW Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 7 makes it clear that the deceased visited PW 5’s shop at around 5:00–5:30 p.m. and the Appellant arrived shortly thereafter, leaving a narrow interval of barely 30 minutes between them. He further submits that both were seen proceeding in the same direction, along the route leading toward the very area where the body was eventually discovered. He submits that this testimony is of great significance not only because PW-5 is an independent witness but also because the Appellant himself, during his examination under Section 313 CrPC, admitted these movements, thereby corroborating PW-5's statement in material particulars. Therefore, it is discernible from the evidence of the aforesaid PW-5 that the Appellant was moving around the place of occurrence where the deceased was later found dead. Such circumstances constitute a material fact linking the Appellant to the incident.
22. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that, though the exact moment of the assault cannot be pinpointed to the minute, the statements of PW-1, PW-5 and PW-8 permit a natural and reasonable inference that the incident occurred between 5:30 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. This timeframe is entirely consistent with the medical opinion of PW-7 and with the Appellant's own admitted movements. He submits that the absence of an exact timestamp
Page No.# 13/55
does not dilute the prosecution case, as every other circumstance converges irresistibly to point to the guilt of the Appellant and fully excludes the involvement of any other person. He, therefore, submits that the last-seen evidence in the present case is natural, consistent and unshaken, forming a significant, though not solitary, link in the complete chain of circumstances proving the guilt of the Appellant.
23. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the pleaded case of the Appellant is not established and the guilt, as stated by PW-8 and PW-10, consistently points toward the clear involvement of the Appellant in the commission of the offence. He submits that PW-8, in his deposition under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, has categorically deposed against the Appellant, which strengthens the prosecution case. He further submits that the non-holding of a TIP is not fatal, as it is settled law that a TIP is not substantive evidence; it is merely an investigative tool meant to provide corroboration during the early stages of inquiry. He submits that the necessity of a TIP stands completely neutralized, as the most vital element, the identity of the person with bloodstained hands, has been admitted by the Appellant himself. Once the accused acknowledges that he was the person who came to PW-8's shop immediately after the incident, the absence of a TIP has no adverse bearing on the prosecution. On the contrary, the accused's own admission of acts provides the strongest corroboration, rendering any TIP redundant and wholly unnecessary. In this connection, he relied on the case of Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) , reported in (2010) 6 SCC 1 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that conduct which destroys the presumption of innocence can be considered as material evidence against the accused. He further relied on the case of Mulakh Raj & Ors. vs. Satish Kumar & Ors.,
Page No.# 14/55
reported in (1992) 3 SCC 43 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the absence of ordinary conduct on the part of an accused and the human probabilities of the case are also relevant considerations.
24. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the fact that the Appellant absconded to Assam is a relevant circumstance indicating a guilty mind. He submits that PW-10, in his statement, has categorically stated that immediately after the incident, the Appellant fled and absconded to Assam, which is a classic circumstance demonstrating a consciousness of guilt and has long been recognized by courts as a highly incriminating factor. He further submits that the Appellant did not return voluntarily, rather, he was traced and brought back only after PW-5 assisted the police in laying a trap to secure his apprehension, which underscores that the Appellant was actively evading arrest. Therefore, this behaviour of the Appellant is wholly inconsistent with innocence and, when viewed cumulatively with his flight and evasive conduct, forms a powerful incriminating circumstance that further strengthens the prosecution case. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the Appellant claims that he was at Charduar, but without providing any travel or location details, as well as no supporting witnesses, the alibi taken by the Appellant, instead of assisting him, becomes an additional incriminating circumstance indicating his guilt. He further submits that the extra-judicial confession made by the Appellant to PW Nos. 12 and 13 constitutes indestructible evidence, clearly demonstrating his guilt in the offence. In this connection, he refers to the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Raja Ram , reported in (2003) 8 SCC 180 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an extra-judicial confession can be the sole basis of conviction if it is credible and trustworthy. As a matter of prudence, the Court may look for corroboration, but such corroboration is not an invariable
Page No.# 15/55
rule of law in all cases.
25. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the circumstantial chain in the present case is complete, uninterrupted, and incapable of any interpretation other than the guilt of the Appellant. He submits that the deceased was last seen alive shortly before the Appellant arrived at the shop of PW-5, and there was merely a short interval between the incident and the departure of the deceased and the Appellant from the shop of PW-5. The medical evidence, supplied by PW-7, conclusively proves that the deceased died due to multiple stab injuries, which aligns perfectly with the prosecution's timeline and the movements of the Appellant during that period. After the incident, the Appellant was found missing; therefore, the aforesaid facts fully constitute substantial evidence, forming a coherent, consistent, and compelling chain of incriminating circumstances, all pointing unerringly toward the guilt of the Appellant and wholly inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence. He, therefore, submits that the Judgment and Order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bomdila, should not be interfered with by this Court. In this connection, he relied upon the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Balveer Singh , reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 390 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that certain tests must be satisfied when a case rests on circumstantial evidence, and the present case fully satisfies those tests.
26. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the defence version is false and fabricated, as the Appellant has taken a false alibi which has no substantive value. He further submits that the non-recovery of the weapon of offence is not fatal, therefore, it cannot be a ground for denying the commission of the offence by the Appellant. He further submits that the non-recovery of the
Page No.# 16/55
weapon is not only explainable but expected, and it does not cast the slightest doubt on the prosecution case, particularly when the remaining evidence is cogent, consistent, overwhelming, and independently establishes the guilt of the Appellant. In this regard, he relied upon the case of Laxmi & Ors. vs. State of U.P. , reported in (2002) 7 SCC 198 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “non-recovery of the weapon used in the offence is not fatal to the prosecution in all cases. Each case must be decided on its own facts and circumstances, and where there is overwhelming evidence supporting conviction, the absence of the weapon does not weaken the prosecution case. He submits that in view of the ingredients of Section 302 of the IPC being present in the instant case, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bomdila, has rightly convicted the Appellant under the said Section.
27. In view of the aforesaid, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the guilt of the Appellant, Sri Sagar Sobar, in the instant case is apparent, and he is guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, this appeal is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
28. Mr. G. Tarak, learned Amicus Curiae for Respondent No. 2, has adopted the submissions advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
29. We have perused the materials available on record and carefully examined the Trial Court Record brought before this Court. We have also considered the detailed submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
30. We now propose to examine the depositions of PWs and DW before the
Page No.# 17/55
Trial Court.
31. PW-1, Mrs Rina Rai deposed that the deceased was her neighbour. She heard a sound like vomiting of a dog, so, she came out from the house and noticed a person was lying on the road, She came close to the person and identified him as the deceased Rakesh. She called Binglu by name, who was present in a house nearby the PO. He came along with other boys and found blood on the body of the deceased. The boys took the victim to the hospital. The deceased was not in the state of speaking. She informed the relatives of the deceased. The deceased was alive till he was taken to the hospital. It was evening time but she cannot exactly say the time. After the death of the deceased, the police arrived in the hospital and recorded their statements. She has stated the same thing whatever she has deposed. Police arrested all the boys who had taken the deceased to the hospital and also her husband. Her husband was also with the boys who were present near to the PO and busy in merry making. She recognised the person standing on the dock and said he is Sagar Sabor. She knows him since longtime back. The accused was suspected to have commit the offence as he had a quarrel with the deceased on the day of incident after consumption of alcohol. Later on, he was arrested by the Police. In her cross examination, she deposed that she was not interested to call her husband as she had a quarrel with him in the evening. The PO was at a distance of around 22 to 25 feet away from the place where the boys were merry making. The body of the deceased lay hardly at a distance of 12 feet from her house. The sound cannot be heard from the deceased’s house which is a distance of around 40-50 feet. The mother of deceased was not present so she informed the other relatives. She heard from Mr. Binglu that the accused had a quarrel with deceased during the day time on the day of the incident. She did
Page No.# 18/55
not hear the reasons of quarrel. She has not carefully noticed the portion of the body where bloods were oozing out she did not see the injury. She did not see the Incident of causing hurt of the victim.
32. PW-2, Mr. Mintu Borua deposed that he knows the accused standing on the dock and that he is his childhood friend. He was also arrested as a suspect by police as he was also present at Atobong, Khola Camp under Bhalukpong Circle with the accused, deceased and other elders namely, Takio Binglu and Sunil Jebisow. Around 1 or 2 PM Mr Takio Binglu and the deceased asked him to accompany them in the shed with alcohol in their hands. He agreed and three of them reached at Atobong and started drinking the local wine. While three of them were drinking alcohol, one Shri Sunil Jebisow came and joined them. The deceased asked him to buy alcohol and accordingly, he along with Sunil Jebisow went to buy alcohol from the market. He happened to meet the accused in the shop of Ajit Rangmo and asked him to join them. On noticing the accused, the deceased lost his temper and started abusing the accused. The deceased stated that the accused is a non-tribal and that he would bury him before leaving Atobong. Anyway, the accused also joined them in drinking alcohol even after the threatening from the deceased. The alcohol was completed and the deceased asked the accused to take Rs. 120.00 to buy alcohol. The deceased first held the collar of the accused and slapped him three or four times without any reasons. In retaliation the accused gave one punch to the deceased. He asked the accused to leave the place but Shri Binglu asked him to stay and slapped the accused twice. He separated them and cried. The deceased assured him that he would not be beaten. Accused was chased by the deceased at P.O., however, the matter was compromised and the accused left the place in the evening time when the dark was started. The deceased and Binglu also left the
Page No.# 19/55
place after gap of 5 to 10 minutes. He along with Sunil Jebisow left the place after 20 minutes time gap when the deceased and Binglu left. He along with Sunil came to the shop of accused as to know the injuries sustained by him but he was not found at the shop. While he was having cigarette at the shop of the accused, the PW-1 told them that the deceased was found at the PO in injured state and also stated that she was going to inform the incident to the relatives of deceased. The time gap of the incident of leaving Atobong by the accused to the information of PW-1 about the injury of the deceased was hardly half an hour time. He went to his home and did not visit the deceased. On next day morning at 6 a.m, he was arrested by the police. The accused was arrested after 5 days of the incident as he was absconding and he heard from the Police the deceased was killed by the accused. In his cross examination, he deposed that the accused is a normal person as he knows but often lost his temper in joking by the friends. The accused sustained injury on that day and there was a swelling on the face. The deceased was not liked by the people of Colony. He was very aggressive after consumption of alcohol and always used to show his Dao. When the accused left the place it was lightly dark. He heard that the deceased was having a case under NDPS Act.
33. PW-3, Mr. Takio Binglu deposed that he knows the accused standing on the dock, he is Sagar Sabor. He was also arrested under suspect by police as he had taken the deceased by picking up the deceased near from the house of PW1. He was also present at Atobong with the accused, deceased and other elders namely, PW-2, & Sunil Jebisow. The alcohol was finished at Atobong and the accused was asked to go to buy alcohol by the deceased to which the accused refused and the deceased beaten the accused. The accused also retaliated to the deceased. However, the matter was compromised. The accused along with
Page No.# 20/55
Sunil Jebisow left the place Atobong and after few minutes later, he along with the deceased left the place Atobong. He went to his home and the deceased left for his house. Again within an hour some of them gathered at a construction site nearby the resident of PW-1. It was dark and he does not recall the time. The deceased and accused were not present in the gathering in the construction site. When the incident was informed by PW-1 they rushed at the PO. He dispersed with the deceased nearby his house in a juncture where the footpath road is leading to the house of the deceased in the village. The normal time to reach the juncture of his house from Atobong is of 5 to 6 minutes. The PO, where the dead body of the deceased was found is 300 to 400 meters away from juncture of his home. The deceased was lying on the road in injured state and blood was oozing out from the body. He was not able to speak. They evacuated him to hospital. He lost his slippers at PO while picking up the deceased. After few minute later, they were informed that the deceased had expired at Hope health clinic, Bhalukpong. The police came later on and recorded their statements. They were detained in the custody in the same evening. Later on, he heard that the deceased was killed by the accused. In his cross examination, he deposed that he knows accused from longtime back. The distance between his house and the diversion road is around 50 feet. The road leading to the house of the deceased is not an isolated place but a village. The distance between construction site where they were merry making is a 20 feet away from the dead body of the deceased. The PW-1 informed them from the PO. They did not hear any sound of the incident though it was near as they were playing guitars. It is true that his slippers were seized by the police. The deceased was good to him but not good for other people after having alcohol. He heard that the deceased was having a case under NDPS Act. He does not
Page No.# 21/55
think the accused had committed offence. Court question :- how long you stayed at home after dispersed from the deceased at diversion point? Answer:He stayed around one hour in his home. Shri Arun Rai came to his home with a proposal to go at construction site to play guitar and sing.
34. PW-4, Mr. Bikash Mohalia deposed that in the evening time at construction site nearby the house of PW-1 they were playing guitars and singing. Shri Firoz, Ali, Kumar, Toi, Arun and Takio Binglu were present. While they were entertaining themselves, they suddenly heard the sound of a person running. They looked towards the sound but could not see anyone. They again started merry making and after 20 or 25 minutes the PW-1 informed them about the incident. Accordingly, they came at PO and found the deceased lying on his belly on the road. When they turned his body they found blood on his body. The deceased was taken to medical by them. All other boys went back to their home to change their clothes and then came back to the hospital. PW-4 did not go back to his home. The doctor informed him about the death of the deceased and told him not to tell the matter to other persons till the arrival of police. Police came and detained them for safety measures. PW-4 stated that he knows the person standing on the dock and his name is Sagar. He also knew the deceased. In his cross examination, he deposed that he heard the deceased was having a case under NDPS Act. The accused is a normal person. He did not see the injury of the deceased as he was nervous on seeing the blood.
35. PW-5, Mr. Ajit Rangmo deposed that he knows the person standing on the dock since 2001. The accused was with him in his shop. He knew the incident from PW- 1. He was also detained in custody. The incident of quarrelling between the accused and the deceased was told to him while in the
Page No.# 22/55
custody by his friend. The accused was absconding and as such he was suspected. On the day of incident, the accused came back to the shop at around 5 to 5:30 P.M and left the shop to meet his supervisor who came from Mumbai. Since then he did not return in the evening. Later on, he was arrested and detained by police. In his cross examination, he deposed that he does not know the reasons of quarrelling between the accused and deceased. The accused is a normal person. He does not believe that the accused had committed the offence. The deceased used to quarrel with others and has criminal records. PW-5, Mr. Ajit Rangmo had been re-examined and deposed that the rough sketch map drawn by the police showing his shop, PO and house of the deceased etc. are correct. It is correct that the deceased and the accused came to his shop in the evening time on the date of incident. The deceased came first before the accused to his shop to have Cigarette. Later on, the accused came to his shop after the deceased left his shop. There was a gap of half an hour between the time the deceased left his shop and the arrival of the accused at his shop. The deceased took the footpath road-2 as shown in rough sketch map. The accused left the road -1 as shown in rough sketch map. The accused stayed in his shop for around half an hour and had supper food with him. He does not remember the wearing appearance of the accused. The accused had surrendered himself before the Bhalukpong Police. The accused is his friend and most of the time, he stayed with him. At around 8 pm, he heard about the incident of the deceased. He did not go to PO to pick up the dead body of the deceased to take him to hospital. He made a call to the accused while in the custody as per the instruction of the police as the accused called him in his mobile. They had a discussion on the case. He told him that the deceased was lying in an unconscious state and he was arrested as a suspect.
Page No.# 23/55
He told him that he is one amongst the suspected persons. He asked him to come at PS to clear the matter. Accordingly, he came. The arrival time of deceased and accused in his shop in that evening was between 5 to 6 pm. In his cross examination, he deposed that his shop used to be closed by 7:30 or 8 pm. The accused went upward towards the bridge and thereafter, he does not know which road he took. At around 7:30 pm, he heard about the incident of the deceased. He does not remember who were the persons came to his shop in that evening. The other friends were present nearby the PO but they did not hear about the incident. The accused came from Mumbai. It may be true that the accused should have been run away if he had committed the offence.
36. PW-6, Mr. Sunil Jebisow deposed that he knows the accused by name. He was arrested as a suspect by the police in the case. He was also present at Pung under Bhalukpong Circle with accused, deceased and other friends namely, Mintu, Takio Bilglo and one more person whom he forgot the name, were consuming wine. They left the said place before sunset. He left the place along with Mintu and forgot the rest persons as he was drunk. On next day morning, he was arrested by the police. What had happened in the evening on that day was not known to him. The police have recorded his statements. There was a quarrel amongst the friends at Pung area after consumption of alcohol but he forgot who were the persons quarrelling and who were pacifying. He was released on the day of arrest. Accused and the deceased were his friends. He does not know why he was arrested in this case and also who killed the deceased Rakesh.
37. PW-7, Dr. Tage Neha deposed that he had conducted PME of deceased Takesh Beyong and submitted the report. The case was of Bhalukpong PS.
Page No.# 24/55
During PME, externally, he found multiple stab injuries on the chest, neck and back of the body of the deceased. He mentioned the time of injury in the report which was 12 to 24 hours at the time of PME. The injury was caused by sharp weapon like knife or Dao. The cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to excessive bleeding. He got the requisition letter from the police to conduct post Mortem of the deceased. P/Ext. 1(B) is the signature of DMO which he had identified. P/Ext. 2 (A) & (B) are his signatures. His findings are mentioned in the PM report. In his cross examination, he deposed that he has 17 years practice in his present profession. He does not remember the exact number of the autopsy conducted by him in his service. The deceased was brought before him at 9 am. He had discussed with the IO of the case before conducting PME. There were internal laceration injuries in the left side of the lungs. The injuries found with the deceased cannot be sustained from falling from above to ground as there were multiple injuries in the body which reveal that it was sustained from other person. In case of falling from above to the ground, the injuries would be a one side injury.
38. PW-8, Shri Narayan Sharma deposed that he has a shop at Lower Bhalukpong which he personally ran. He forgot the date but it was one evening at around 7 to 7:30 P.M while he was closing the shop, the accused appeared in the shop and had purchased one marie gold biscuit and one cigarette. He gave his statements to the police on the next day. The police asked him about the boys visiting his shop. He told the police that many boys used to visit his shop. Again, the police asked him whether he has seen any boys to have been committed any affray. Then, he remembered that one boy whom he did not know came to his shop with blood in his right hand while receiving the cigarette which he noticed. His shop is located at between Shiv Mandir and Namgrah.
Page No.# 25/55
P/Ext. 3 is his shop in rough sketch map. In his cross examination, he deposed that he did not exactly remember the face of the boy who purchased cigarette, marie gold in that evening. He was also not sure that the accused who was standing on the dock was the boy who purchased cigarette; marie gold biscuit on that evening. In his re-cross examination, he deposed that the accused was not produced before him for identification.
39. PW-9, Shri Pransanta Baruah deposed that he heard that the accused had committed the murder. The police arrested Bikash, Mintu, Binglu and Arun. One day when he was going to give food to his son, Mintu Baruah in the jail, he noticed the accused standing on middle of the road nearby Dhola Camp RCC Bridge, Bhalukpong. The accused told him that he was going to police station and on the way at check gate, the police apprehended the accused. He also went to the jail to give food to his son. His son was arrested in connection with the death of deceased Rakesh Beyong as he was in the party with the deceased. In his cross examination, he deposed that he knew the accused since his childhood. He was goon in their view.
40. PW-10, Shri Ige Ete deposed the he came to this Court as witness in connection to the case in capacity of the IO. He was posted at Bhalukpong at that point of time as SI. On 19.02.2017, a complaint was received from Shri Nyokam Rangmo alleging that in the evening of 18.02.2017, around 8 pm, there was murder and the complainant strongly suspected his friends Ajit Rangmo, Mr. Binglu Takio, Mr. Arun Chetry, Sagar Adivasi and Vikash Boro. Accordingly, case was registered and endorsed him for investigation. He visited the PO, drawn rough sketch map and seized blood samples from the PO. Dead body of the deceased was sent to PME. He seized sporting T-shirt from the deceased body.
Page No.# 26/55
During investigation, he came across a pan shopkeeper, Bhalukpong who told him that in the evening, the accused came to his shop asking for cigarette or something else during which he saw blood on face and cloths of the accused. Accordingly, his suspicion on the accused became more strong and leading to arrest of the accused. The accused fled away to Assam. The accused was trapped by his friend Ajit Rangmo over mobile saying that the victim was alive and under medical treatment and accused was to provide necessary medical treatment and as a result of the incident Ajit Rangmo was in custody. As such, the accused came back to Bhalukpong from Assam on being trapped. The accused was apprehended at check gate and he accordingly arrested him. During interrogation, he admitted to committing the offence. PW-10 identified the accused standing on the dock. According to the accused, during interrogation he was proceeding towards his mother's house in Assam side and accidently happened to meet the deceased at PO who was coming to join with the party of his friends. The deceased attacked the accused first and during the scuffle a knife came to the hands of the accused and he stabbed the deceased. The accused had a motive as the deceased humiliated him as and when they gathered. The accused had also committed theft from the hostel of surrendered Boro Militants as his long pant was smeared with blood. He washed the sporting and threw away the long pant in Kameng river in Assam side. He seized his sporting for FSL test. The weapon of offence could not be recovered. The other arrested accused persons were found innocent and discharged after the investigation was completed. He charge sheeted the case U/S 302, IPC. He did not find any injury on the accused at the time of arrest. P/Ext. 5 is seizure list of one slipper that actually belongs to the friends of the accused and deceased who took the deceased to hospital. P/Ext. 6 is seizure memo of red design
Page No.# 27/55
sporting Ganji and white half ganji. P/Ext. 6(A) is his signature and P/Ext. (B) is signature of Tam Rajput which he can identify. P/Ext. 7(A) is his signature. He can identify signatures of two witnesses as P/Ext. (B) & (C). P/Ext. 8 is statement of alleged accused and P/Ext. 8(A) is his Signature on it. P/Ext. 2(C) is his signature on handing taking over of the dead body by the police. P/Ext. 9(A) is his signature. M/Ext. 1 is the photograph of escape route of the accused and same was taken on leading by the accused. M/Ext. 1(A) is his signature. M/Ext. 2 is pan gumty shop and M/Ext. 2(A) is his signature. M/Ext. 3 & 4 is the PO of committing theft of a pant by the accused. M/Ext. 3(A) & 4(A) are his signatures. M/Ex. 5 & 6 are picnic spot, M/Ext. 5(A) & 6(A) are his signatures. M/Ext. 7 to 9 is photograph of PO and M/Ext. 7(a) are his signatures. He took the photograph from his mobile. M/Ext. 10 to 20 are the photograph of deceased and M/Ext. 10(A) is his signature. P/Ext. 11 is forwarding of FIR copy and P/Ext. 11(A) is his signature. In his cross examination, he deposed that he did not know the accused and deceased were good friends. He had no idea about the sending of FSL test to the seized sporting by the later IO. No eye witnesses of the incident. He had not found any other criminal case of the accused during investigation. In so far as he can remember, the deceased was involved in a NDPS case. It may be true that P/Ext. 5 slipper belongs to Ajit Rangmo who was one of the persons who evacuated the deceased. The accused told him that the weapon of offence was thrown into the Sunday Market area and next day was the Sunday market. He had not enclosed the authenticity certificate of all the M/Ext. He had not mentioned the date & time in all M/Exts. He had not received any FIR for stolen of pant. Civilians were also present at the time of seizing the materials. It was not a fact that he had forcefully recorded his admission statement. He had not found any other
Page No.# 28/55
enemies of the deceased during investigation except the accused who had no good terms with the deceased as the deceased always humiliated the accused when they happened to meet each other. It was not a fact that the accused returned to Bhalukpong as he did not commit the offence. The accused was in good terms with Ajit Rangmo. The accused did not meet Ajit Rangmo after the incident.
41. PW-11, Shri Passang Dorjee deposed that he came to the Court as witness in connection with the case in capacity of a seizure witness. He accompanied the IO of the case during investigation and witnessed the seizure of T-shirt of the accused from his possession at PS after he was arrested. He knew the accused Mr. Sagar Sabor after he was arrested. He did not see anything in the T-shirt. It was seized in connection with the murder case. P/Ext. 12(A) is his signature. In his cross examination, he deposed that it was not a fact that he has put his signature involuntarily.
42. PW-12, Mr. Nyakam Rangmo deposed that he is connected to the case as a witness of murder of his brother in- law Rakesh Beyong. The incident occurred 2 to 3 years back. He could identify the person standing on the dock, who admitted before him of having killed the deceased. He strongly suspected that some others were also involved into the offence. Ajit Rangmo, Vikash Boro, Takia Binglu, Arun Chetry were together with the deceased and as such he doubted them too. The deceased was with the aforesaid persons including the accused the whole day. On the day of the incident, the deceased got payment from O- Metal Company (Kimi). He got the information of the incident from Nachung Takio. He came to the private hospital located at lower Bhalukpong. He saw the body of the deceased and found cut injury in the left portion of chest
Page No.# 29/55
and neck. The deceased was sent for PME. He lodged the FIR at Bhalukpong PS. On searching the body of the deceased, an amount of Rs 3000/- was found. He had no idea about the deceased having any enemy. The accused was arrested after 5 days of the incident. P/Ext. 13(A) is his signature. In his cross examination, he deposed that he heard that the deceased and all the suspected persons including the accused together nearby the PO during that night. It might be also happened that some of other suspected accused have committed the offence with the accused but the accused was not telling them the truth. The deceased was arrested for other offences too. The deceased was getting Rs 8000/- to 9000/- per month as security guard. The deceased sustained stab injuries on neck and chest. He heard that other suspects were set at liberty as the accused had claimed to have committed the offence alone.
Page No.# 30/55
deceased. All named person were arrested except the accused Sagar Sabor as he was absconding. Accused was staying with Mr. Ajit Rangmo. After few days, someone had seen the accused coming from the house of Ajit Rangmo and going towards the PS. When she reached to the accused and asked him why he had killed her brother, the accused told her that he would speak the truth before the police and that he was innocent. In the meantime, police arrived and took him away. She heard that the accused had admitted his guilt before police. Her husband and mother went to the PS and heard his statement. She did not know the reason behind the killing. Police had recorded her statement. She noticed two stab injuries on the ribs side of chest. One stab injury on the side of the neck and also on the chin. After one month of the incident, one cousin brother of Ajit Rangmo, Mr. Dayuk Gyadi aged about 5 years stated in presence of many other persons in our colony that the deceased was actually killed by Ajit Rangmo. She also heard that the weapon of offence was recovered from the house of Ajit Rangmo and slipper of Ajit Rangmo was also found at PO. She never believed that the accused could kill her brother as he was physically weak comparing to her brother. She believed that the accused cannot do it alone. In cross examination, she deposed that Rina Rangmo informed her at 5.30 PM. She came to know about the incident upon hearing of a sound and came out to see it. She found that the deceased was lying on the road. The PO is a silent place. Ajit Rangmo and accused was not present at the PO. It was true that deceased was having criminal case. He might have enemies. It might also be possible that the accused was confessing the guilt on behalf of others.
44. PW-14, Mr. Anand Topno, deposed that he knew the case and that it relates to the murder of Rakesh. He deposed that he had not seen the incident, but he heard, after two months, that the accused Sagar Sobar had committed
Page No.# 31/55
the offence. He was arrested by police in connection with the case. He stated that he did not know the accused on the dock. The incident took place in the evening, at around 6 PM on 18.02.2017, and when he was at Khola Camp in the house of his sister-in-law, he stated that he heard shouting by people. Thereafter, he came out from the house and noticed that the deceased was lying on the ground with blood. He stated that the place of occurrence was near the house of his sister-in-law, and he, Bikash and other friends took the deceased to Hope Clinic. He stated that after he came back to his house, he changed his clothes because there were blood stains on them. Subsequently, police called him to reach Hope Clinic, and he was arrested. In his crossexamination, he stated he did not know the deceased before the incident. He stated that he knew him by face. He stated that at the time of his arrival at the place of occurrence, the deceased was making sounds like the sound of a dog and he could not speak. He stated that the place of occurrence was not very visible, as there was no light. He stated that he had not seen any person escape from the place of occurrence. He, along with some other persons, was arrested on suspicion of being relatives of the deceased.
45. PW-15, Duto Bagra deposed that he was connected to the Court as he is 2nd IO of the case. The case was endorsed him on 18.09.2017 and he had examined 1 or 2 witnesses. He had also prepared and reconstructed rough sketch map. He filed the CS U/s- 302/201 IPC on the basis of investigation already done by previous IO. The motive of the crime was for revenge. The accused and deceased were friends and, on that day, the accused Sagar Sabor, Sunil Jebisow, Mintu Barua, Takio Binglu & deceased had gone to picnic at Atobong located in Khola Camp Bhalukpong. They consumed alcohol and ganja in the picnic. The local beers which they had brought were finished but they
Page No.# 32/55
wanted more. Mr. Mintu Borua was asked to fetch more beer by the deceased. But Mintu Borua handed over the money to accused Sagar Sabor to fetch local but the accused refused. On refusal by the accused, deceased Rakesh Beyong got annoyed and slapped the accused. After having fun at Atobong, they left for their own house in the evening. In between 6 to 7 pm, the accused came to the shop of Ajit Rangmo and at the same time, the deceased also came to that shop and after purchasing a cigarette the deceased left for his home. As soon as the deceased left for his house, accused also left telling Ajit Rangmo that he was going to visit his mother. Both of them left in different directions, there are two roads leading to the house of deceased. One of the roads is towards left and other is right of the shop of Ajit Rangmo. Deceased took the road of left direction and accused took road of right direction. Instead of visiting his mother, accused turned towards the road which lead to the house of deceased. On the way he found deceased and assaulted him with a knife due to which deceased sustained multiple stab injuries and succumbed to his injuries. The accused disclosed that after committing crime, he took the road to Sunday market located in Assam side and came on the highway where he went to a shop run by one Mr. Narayan Sharma. At that time, there were blood stains in his hand, face, body & cloths. He asked biscuit & cigarette from the shopkeeper. When the shopkeeper queried him about the blood on cloths and face, the accused told that he had a fight with a boy. After that the alleged accused proceeded towards (Thursday) on foot and had stolen a jeans pant from the house of Rahul Narzary. After that, he went to the bank of river Kameng and washed himself. The weapon of offence could not be recovered as it was thrown at Sunday market place and immediately next day the Sunday market was conducted there. P/Ext. 14 is CS P/Ext. 14(A) & (B) are his signatures. P/Ext. 15
Page No.# 33/55
is Seizure list. P/Ext. 15(A) is his signature. P/Ext. 16 is particular of accused. P/Ext. 16(A) to (H) are his signatures. P/Ext. 17 is particular of witnesses. P/Ext.17(A) are his signatures. P/Ext. 3 is reconstruction of rough sketch map of scene of crime. P. Ext. 3(A) is his signature. P/Ext. 18 is statement of Ajit Rangmo. P.Ext. 18(A) is his signature. P/Ext. 19 is statement of Prasant Borua. P.Ext. 19(A) is his signature. P/Ext. 20 is statement of Narayan Sharma. P/Ext. (A) is his signature.
46. PW-16, Mr. Ashok Sono deposed that he knows the case. It is a murder case of Rakesh Beyong. He had not seen the incident but he heard that the accused Sagar Sabor had committed the offence. He witnessed the seizure memo P/Ext. No. 5 and P/Ext. No. 5(b) is his signature. In his cross examination, he deposed that he put his signature on P/Ext. No. 5 at the PO. Many people were there but his brother and he had put his signature.
47. PW-17, Mr. Babing Beyong deposed that police called him at PO but he had not put his signature on the seizure memo P/Ext. No. 5. The signature in P.EX. No. 5 appears to correspond to his name but it did not belong to him. He was present at the time of recording the statement of the accused by the police during which the accused admitted to commit the offence. In his cross examination he deposed that he did not give statement to the police.
48. DW- 1, Mr. Sagar Sabor deposed that admittedly, he was present in party in day time but he was not present at PO at the time of the incident as he was in another place. At the time of incident, he was at Charduar. The party was ended around 5 p.m. and he came back to his partnership shop with Ajit Rangmo. From his shop, he went to his house around 5:40 pm and then to bus stand at around 6 p.m. He was called from Charduar by Ajit Rangmo over
Page No.# 34/55
telephone informing that the deceased was beaten by unknown person and asked him to come back if he has not committed the offence to the deceased. He also told him that the deceased was in medical and alive & unable to speak. Accordingly, he came back to Bhalukpong and told them that he had not committed the offence. In his cross examination he deposed that it was not a fact that he would never come back if he heard news of death of deceased. He received the call after four days of incident. It was not fact that he made a call to Ajit Rangmo in order to gather information about the deceased. It was not a fact that his hand was found with spot of blood at the time of purchasing cigarette from shop. It was fact that deceased used to humiliate him at various occasions. He was aggressive in nature. Не informed his mother and sister about his going to Charduar. He did not know about the exact incident. He was not able to produce other defence witnesses. Court examination: His home is walking distance of 15 minutes from his partnership shop with Ajit Rangmo. The distance between shops of Ajit Rangmo & Nayaran Sharma is a walking distance of around 25 minute
49. From the above depositions as well as the materials brought before this Court, the following facts are discernible and emerge:
i) that the Appellant and the deceased were present at a place called Atobong, located at Khola Camp, along with some other persons, consuming alcohol. All those who were present at that place left sometime in the evening before 5 P.M. There was a quarrel between the deceased and the Appellant due to some humiliating words used by the deceased against the Appellant. Consequently, a fight occurred between the deceased and the Appellant, however, the
Page No.# 35/55
same was later compromised, though the Appellant sustained some injuries during the tussle.
ii) An FIR was lodged by one Nyokam Rangmo before the Officer-inCharge of Bhalukpong Police Station on 19.02.2017, alleging that one of his family members, namely, Sri Rakesh Beyong (the deceased), was murdered by someone at Khola Camp at around 7:15 PM to 8:00 PM. It was alleged that the family of the deceased suspected Shri Ajit Rangmo, Shri Binglu Takhio, Arun Chetry, Sagar Adivasi (the accused appellant) and Bikash Boro of committing the murder. It was also alleged that they strongly suspected Mrs. Reena Rangmo to be involved in the murder case because of her activities on the previous night. However, during the investigation, Shri Ajit Rangmo, Shri Binglu Takhio, Arun Chetry, and Bikash Boro were discharged by the police, having found no materials against them. Having found sufficient materials against the Appellant, he was charged with the murder of the deceased, namely Shri Rakesh Beyong.
iii) From the depositions before the Trial Court, it is seen that PW-1, i.e., Mrs. Rina Rai, was the first person who saw the deceased lying on the road beside her house. She called PW-3, namely Shri Takio Binglu, who was busy merry-making with his friends at a construction site located at a distance of about 20 to 25 feet from the place of occurrence. PW-1 also informed the relatives of the deceased. It is seen that the house of the deceased was about 50 feet away from the place of occurrence.
Page No.# 36/55
iv) As per the evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, namely, Mintu Borua, Takio Binglu and Bikash Mohalia respectively, neither the accused nor the victim was present with them at the halfconstructed site where they were merry-making at that point of time. It is also seen that the place where they were merry-making was about 25 feet away from the place of occurrence.
v) It also emerges from the depositions of PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6 that the Appellant and the deceased had a quarrel at Atobong during the day prior to the incident in the evening. It is seen that PW-3, namely Takio Binglu, accompanied the deceased from Atobong to a point from where they both proceeded to their respective houses.
vi) It is seen from the deposition of PW-2, namely Mintu Barua, that he along with PW-6, namely Sunil Jebisow, left the place at Atobong about 20 minutes after the deceased and PW-3, namely Takio Binglu, had left. PW-2 stated that he along with PW-6, went to the shop of the accused appellant to enquire about his injuries but the accused appellant was not found at the shop. It is stated that while he was having a cigarette at the shop of the Appellant, PW-1 informed them about the incident.
vii) It is also seen from the deposition of PW-4, namely Bikash Mohalia, that Shri Firoz, Ali, Kumar, Toi, Arun and Takio Binglu were present at the construction site when they heard the sound of a person running but no one was seen. However, he stated that after about 20 to 25 minutes, PW-1 informed them about the incident.
Page No.# 37/55
viii) PW-5, Shri Ajit Rangmo, deposed that the Accused came to his shop in the evening between about 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM but left the shop to meet his supervisor who had come from Mumbai. He further stated that the deceased also came to his shop in the evening on the same day to have a cigarette. He stated that the deceased had come before the accused appellant arrived at his shop. According to him, there was a gap of about half an hour between the arrival of the deceased and the accused at the shop. He further stated that the deceased took footpath road-2, while the accused left through road-1. He also stated that, as per the instructions of the police, he informed the Appellant that the deceased was lying unconscious and that the Appellant was one of the suspected persons. He stated that he asked the Appellant to come back and clear his name in the matter. Accordingly, the Appellant returned and was apprehended by the police.
ix) One of the key witnesses in the instant case, i.e., PW-8, namely Narayan Sharma, deposed that he runs a shop at Lower Bhalukpong. He stated that although he forgot the exact date, it was in the evening at around 7:00–7:30 PM when he was closing his shop that the Appellant appeared at the shop and purchased one marigold biscuit and one cigarette. He further stated that he gave his statement to the police on the following day when the police came to ask him about the persons who had visited his shop. He recalled the boy, whom he did not know, but noticed blood on his right hand while handing over the cigarette. When he asked about the blood, he replied about a fight. PW-8 later recognized the same
Page No.# 38/55
boy in the dock as the person who had purchased the marigold biscuit and cigarette from his shop that evening.
x) It is also seen that during the examination of the Appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the Appellant admitted that he had visited the shop to buy a marigold biscuit and a cigarette. However, he declined to comment on the noticing of blood on his right hand by PW-8. It is pertinent to mention that, as per his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the Appellant arrived at the shop of PW-8 at around 6:00 PM, rather than at 7:00–7:30 PM as deposed by PW-8. Therefore, there is no denial of the fact that the Appellant had, in fact, visited the shop of PW-8, though there is a difference regarding the time of his visit.
xi) PW-12, namely Nyakam Rangmu, deposed that the Appellant admitted before him that he had killed the deceased. However, in his statement he also stated that he suspected that the Appellant might have committed the offence along with some other suspected persons and that the Appellant was not disclosing the correct facts. In addition to what PW-12 had stated, PW-14, namely Shri Babing Beyong, stated that he was present at the time of recording of the statement of the Appellant by the police, during which the Appellant admitted to having committed the offence. It is also seen that during his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the Appellant did not make any comments in his defence against the statement of PW-14. However, he denied the statement of PW-12.
xii) It is seen from the evidence of PW-1 that the place of
Page No.# 39/55
occurrence lies around 50 feet away from the house of the deceased. It is also seen from the evidence of PW-5 that the deceased left his shop about half an hour before the arrival of the Appellant and that the Appellant, after staying there for about half an hour with PW-5, left the place. It is also seen from the evidence of PW-13 that the deceased came to her house at about 5:00 PM, had supper and thereafter, left the place. It is further seen from the evidence of PW-3 that he left the deceased at a junction near the house of the deceased. Therefore, there is a possibility that the deceased might have visited the shop of PW-5 between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM and thereafter, took road-2 and had supper at the house of PW-13. It is also seen from the evidence of PW-13 that he might have thereafter come out to join the merry-making at the halfconstructed site, which was around 25 feet away from the place of occurrence and around 50 feet from the house of PW-13.
xiii) PW-10, namely Shri Ige Ete, the first Investigating Officer (I.O.) of the case, deposed that during the investigation, he came across a pan shopkeeper in Bhalukpong who stated that in the evening a boy had visited his shop asking for a cigarette and some other items, during which the shopkeeper noticed blood on his face and clothes. He stated that the Appellant fled to Assam, however, the Appellant was traced through his friend, Shri Ajit Rangmo, who called him over the phone. Accordingly, the Appellant returned to Bhalukpong and was subsequently arrested. PW-10 further stated that the Appellant admitted to having committed the offence. The Appellant stated that while proceeding towards his mother’s house, he accidentally
Page No.# 40/55
encountered the deceased at the place of occurrence, the deceased being on his way to join a merry-making party with his friends. The Appellant admitted that the deceased attacked him first and during the scuffle, he stabbed the deceased with a knife. PW-10 further stated that the Appellant admitted to having stolen clothes from the hostel of surrendered Boro militants in order to dispose of his bloodsmeared long pant. The Appellant also admitted to having washed the sporting and thrown the long pant into the Kameng River on the Assam side. PW-10 further stated that the weapon of offence could not be recovered as it was disposed of in the area where the weekly Sunday market is held.
xiv) PW-15, Shri Duto Bagra, the second Investigating Officer of the case, deposed similarly as stated by PW-10 and corroborated the prosecution’s case.
50. It is seen in the case in hand that no one has been able to pinpoint the exact time when the murder actually occurred. However, the FIR suggests that the incident must have taken place between 7:15 PM and 8:00 PM, as PW-1 discovered the body of the deceased around that time. From all the evidence, as discussed above, the timing of the offence is approximately during this period. PW-8 specifically stated that he met the Appellant in his shop at around 7:007:30 PM, which he particularly remembers because it was the usual time when he closes his shop. The fact of the Appellant visiting PW-8’s shop was not denied by him during his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, therefore, it cannot be ruled out in certain terms that the Appellant was not present in and around the place of occurrence when the offence actually took place.
Page No.# 41/55
51. The evidence of PW-8, coupled with the admission of the Appellant that he visited the shop of PW-8, constitutes very strong evidence against him, establishing that Appellant was in the vicinity of place of occurrence at the relevant time. The Appellant contended that he left Bhalukpong at around 6:00 PM for Assam, however, this claim is doubtful, as PW-8 specifically stated that the Appellant was present at his shop around 7:00–7:30 PM. PW-8 stated that he remembered the timing as usually he closes his shop during that time and the Appellant visited him during that time. The evidence of PW-5 and PW-13 further indicate that the Appellant left PW-5’s shop after the deceased had left, probably with a gap of about half an hour. It is also seen that after leaving the shop, the deceased went to PW-13’s house, had his food, and thereafter left the place. Therefore, if the deceased left after half an hour and the Appellant left the shop around the same time, there is a strong probability that the Appellant and the deceased encountered each other at that point.
52. It is also seen from the statement of PW-5 that the Appellant left the shop at around 5:40 PM, stating that he was going to meet his supervisor who had arrived from Mumbai. It is further seen from the evidence that the shop of PW-8 is located at a place that takes about 25 minutes to reach from the shop of PW5. Therefore, in sequence, if the Appellant left the shop of PW-5 at about 5:40 PM, visited his own house and then proceeded to the shop of PW-8, the probability is that he would have reached the shop of PW-8 by around 6:00 PM, as claimed by the Appellant. It is also seen that the Appellant claimed that he left Bhalukpong and went to Assam and thereafter, to Mumbai, returning only when PW-5 called him. However, there is no material brought before the Trial Court to support this claim, as he could not produce any evidence corroborating his later movements. Consequently, the alibi taken by the Appellant becomes
Page No.# 42/55
difficult to be trusted without any corroboration or evidence to that effect. He failed to provide any details to show that he had actually left the place of occurrence at around 6:00 PM, after the alleged commission of the murder and returned only after five days upon learning of the incident and that he was suspected of committing the offence. Since the Appellant has taken an alibi then same needs to be supported by his explanation, corroboration and evidence.
53. From the above summary of evidence, it is seen that the party at Atobong ended sometime around 5:00 PM, although none of the witnesses could precisely recollect or state the exact time when the party concluded. It was, however, stated that the party ended when it was about to get dark in the evening. The evidence further shows that the Appellant and the deceased left the party at Atobong in a gap of approximately 10-15 minutes. It is seen that the Appellant came to the shop of PW-5 after the deceased had already left the shop and according to the evidence, there was a gap of about half an hour between the arrivals of the deceased and the Appellant. Therefore, it is apparent that the Appellant must have spent some time somewhere after leaving Atobong and before reaching the shop of PW-5, whereas the deceased may have reached the shop directly.
54. In his first examination, PW-5 stated that the Appellant visited his shop between 5:00 and 5:30 PM, whereas in his second examination, he stated that the Appellant visited the shop between 5:00 and 6:00 PM. Therefore, it may be taken that both the Appellant and the deceased visited the shop of PW-5 in between 5:00 and 6:00 PM. If the timing is considered as 5:00–5:30 PM, then the Appellant must have visited the shop of PW-5 around 5:30 PM because the Appellant visited his shop after the leaving of the shop by the deceased and as
Page No.# 43/55
there was a gap of 30 mnts. time. So If after the party at Atobong about 5 PM, the deceased visited his place after 5 PM about 5:10 PM, he must have left the place at 5:10-15 PM and thereafter, the Appellant arrived at the shop at around 5:40 PM and thereafter, stayed for another half an hour, having food. In that case, he must have left the shop about 6:10-15 PM and in that case, it would not have been possible for him to reach the shop of PW-8 before 6:00 PM, as he had claimed. On the other hand, if the timing is taken as 5:30–6:00 PM for the visit of both the Appellant and the deceased to PW-5’s shop, it would be even more difficult for the Appellant to reach the shop of PW-8 before 6:00 PM. Considering that the shop of PW-8 takes about 25 minutes to reach from PW-5’s shop, in either case, it would still not have been possible for the Appellant to reach PW-8’s shop before 6:00 PM. Therefore, the circumstances of the case clearly indicate that the presence of the Appellant near the place of occurrence at the time of the incidence and the same cannot be disregarded.
55. It is also seen from the evidence of PW-13 that the deceased visited her house at about 5:00 PM and spent approximately 30 minutes there. She further stated that she was informed about the commission of the murder by Mrs. Reena Rangmo about half an hour after the deceased had left her house. Therefore, the incident appears to have occurred between 5:30-6:30 PM. This fact indicates that if the deceased visited the shop of PW-5 at 5:00 PM, the incident must have taken place approximately around 6:30 PM. If, however, the deceased visited the shop of PW-5 at around 5:30 PM and thereafter, visited his sister’s house then the incident would have occurred around 7:30 PM. In either scenario, the probable presence of the Appellant at or near the place of occurrence cannot be ruled out taking into account the statement of PW5 as discussed above.
Page No.# 44/55
56. It is also seen from the deposition of PW-3 and PW-4 that they heard the sound of a person running when they were merry-making and they received information about the incident from PW-1 within 20 minutes of hearing such sound. This also places the occurrence of the incident sometime around 6:30 PM. It is further seen from the medical report that the approximate time of the incident was 12 to 24 hours prior to the examination. The post-mortem examination was conducted on 19.02.2017 at 9:00 hours; therefore, the postmortem report also indicates that the timing of the incident was within the time suggested in the prosecution story. PW-8 was specific in his statement that the Appellant came to his shop at about 7.00 to 7.30 p.m. This circumstance also strongly points towards the presence of the Appellant near the place of occurrence at that point of time. This negates the version of the Appellant that he left Bhalukpung at 6 PM. Taking into account the entire facts as they have emerged in the instant case, the circumstances clearly provide valuable material to show the presence of the Appellant near the place of occurrence at the time of commission of the offence, that is sometime between 6.00 PM. and 7.00 PM.
57. It is also seen from the evidence that the motive of the Appellant in the commission of the murder can be inferred from the incident that happened in the earlier part of the day, wherein the deceased had assaulted the Appellant. It is further seen that the Appellant went missing after the alleged commission of the offence and returned only when he was assured by his friend, PW-5, about the status of the deceased as being under medical treatment.
58. It is also seen that although the Appellant had taken an alibi by stating that he was not present at the time of the occurrence and that he had, in fact, not absconded but had gone for some work without knowing anything about the
Page No.# 45/55
alleged commission of the offence, in his defence, he could not produce any material to support the aforesaid alibi. Rather, he admitted that he had visited the shop of PW-8 in the evening. Therefore, the circumstances, as discussed above, clearly show the proximate presence of the Appellant at the place of occurrence at the relevant point of time and the prosecution’s story could not be shaken by the defence in the instant case.
59. Ms. Danggen, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, have cited several case laws, which have been duly considered by this Court. Relevant ones are discussed below.
60. As far as the question of motive is concerned, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has relied on the case of Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana , reported in (2013) 14 SCC 434 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that if the evidence on record adequately suggests the existence of a necessary motive to commit a crime, it may be inferred that the accused, in fact, committed the same. In this connection, paragraph 28, being relevant, is extracted herein below:
“28. The evidence regarding the existence of a motive which operates in the mind of the accused is very often very limited, and may not be within the reach of others. The motive driving the accused to commit an offence may be known only to him and to no other. In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive may be a very relevant factor. However, it is the perpetrator of the crime alone who is aware of the circumstances that prompted him to adopt a certain course of action, leading to the commission of the crime. Therefore, if the evidence on record suggests adequately, the existence of the necessary motive required to commit a crime, it may be conceived that the accused has in fact, committed the same. (Vide: Subedar Tewari v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1989 SC 733; Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 2420; and Dr.
Page No.# 46/55
Sunil Clifford Daniel v. State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCC 205).”
61. In the instant case, it is evident that there was a quarrel between the Appellant and the deceased. The quarrel arose because the deceased humiliated the Appellant. The quarrel resulted in a physical assault in which the Appellant was injured. Therefore, there is a strong possibility that the Appellant, being hurt both physically and emotionally, became agitated and sought to take revenge on the deceased. Thus, a strong inference of motive can be drawn from that aspect.
62. Though the Appellant claimed that he had left Bhalukpong before 6 P.M. and went to Assam and thereafter to Mumbai, both the Appellant and PW-5 stated that he returned from Mumbai on 23.02.2017 after about four days of the incident. If it is assumed that the Appellant had left Bhalukpong on 18.02.2017 in the evening for Assam and thereafter, went to Mumbai and returned to Bhalukpong on 23.02.2017, then he must have completed the entire journey within a period of four days, i.e., going to Mumbai and coming back from Mumbai to Bhalukpong. In the considered opinion of this Court, it may not be possible for a person to travel to Mumbai by road from Bhalukpong and return within four days and there is no material to suggest that the Appellant had travelled by air. Therefore, the claim of going to Mumbai and returning to Bhalukpong appears to be not realistic to be believed. Additionally, the Appellant did not produce any evidence of such travel. In the opinion of this Court, this apparently a false claim by the Appellant in the instant case which undermines the presumption of innocence, which is a material consideration against him. In this connection, the case of Siddharth Vashisht alias Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) , reported in (2010) 6 SCC 1 , as relied on by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, can be referred to. Paragraphs 232 and 233, being
Page No.# 47/55
relevant, are extracted herein below:
“232. A criminal trial is not an enquiry into the conduct of an accused for any purpose other than to determine whether he is guilty of the offence charged. In this connection, that piece of conduct can be held to be incriminatory which has no reasonable explanation except on the hypothesis that he is guilty. Conduct which destroys the presumption of innocence can alone be considered as material. In this regard, it is useful to refer Anant Chaintaman Lagu vs. State of Bombay AIR 1960 SC 500:-
"68. Circumstantial evidence in this context means a combination of facts creating a network through which there is no escape for the accused, because the facts taken as a whole do not admit of any inference but of his guilt.
……76. this conduct [of the accused] was so knit together as to make a network of circumstances pointing only to his guilt......His methods was his own undoing; because even the long arm of coincidence could not explain the multitude of circumstances against him, and they destroyed the presumption of innocence with which law clothed him."
63. As discussed above, the circumstantial evidence in the instant case is sufficient to point the finger of guilt towards the Appellant. Sufficient materials have been placed before this Court suggesting that the Appellant was, in fact, present near the place of occurrence at the time the incident took place. The evidence of PW-5, PW-8, and PW-13 completes the chain of circumstances. Additionally, the key evidence of PW-8, to the effect that he saw the Appellant in his shop with bloodstained hands, was not denied by the Appellant. In fact, he
Page No.# 48/55
admitted to having visited the shop of PW-8. This version of PW-8 was neither discredited nor rendered doubtful by any defence evidence. Therefore, the chain of circumstances in the instant case is complete, establishing the clear guilt of the Appellant.
64. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of cases, has laid down the principles regarding circumstantial evidence on which a person can be convicted. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh, reported in 2025 SCC Online Supreme Court 390 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that certain tests must be satisfied when a case rests on circumstantial evidence. Paragraphs 61, 62 and 63 of the aforesaid case, being relevant to the instant case, is extracted herein below:
“61. Although there can be no straight jacket formula for appreciation of circumstantial evidence, yet to convict an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the Court must follow certain tests which are broadly as follows: -
Page No.# 49/55
circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
“In matters of direct testimony, if credence be given to the relators, the act of hearing and the act of belief, though really not so, seem to be contemporaneous. But the case is very different when we have to determine upon circumstantial evidence, the judgment in respect of which is essentially inferential. There is no apparent necessary connection between the facts and the inference; the facts may be true, and the inference erroneous, and it is only by comparison with the results of observation in similar or analogous circumstances, that we acquire confidence in the accuracy of our conclusions.
The term PRESUMPTIVE is frequently used as synonymous with CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; but it is not so used with strict accuracy, The word" presumption," ex vi termini, imports an inference from facts; and the adjunct "presumptive," as applied to evidentiary facts, implies the certainty of some relation between the facts and the inference. Circumstances generally, but not necessarily, lead to particular inferences; for the facts may be indisputable, and yet their relation to the principal fact may be only apparent, and not real; and even when the connection is real, the deduction may be erroneous. Circumstantial and presumptive evidence differ, therefore, as genus and species.
The force and effect of circumstantial evidence depend upon its incompatibility with, and incapability of, explanation or solution upon any other supposition than that of the truth of the fact which it is adduced to prove; the mode of argument
Page No.# 50/55
resembling the method of demonstration by the reductio ad absurdum.”
65. This Court has also considered the statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, which were relied upon by the Trial Court as well as by this Court in completing the chain of circumstances. It is seen from the statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. that, although the Appellant denied his involvement in the commission of the crime, he did not deny the specific question put to him regarding his visit to the shop of PW-8, to which he replied as follows:
66. From the above, it is seen that the Appellant had admitted that he visited the shop of PW-8, although he stated the timing to be different. It is also seen that, on being asked about the blood on his hands, he did not offer any comment nor did he explain anything about the same. It is true that an accused has the right to remain silent, however, taking into account the entire
Page No.# 51/55
statements made under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., it is observed that he had been consistently denying involvement and had sufficiently explained his activities in response to other questions put to him. Yet, in the instant question, he preferred not to provide any explanation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sanatan Naskar and Another v. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 2010 SC 3570 , held that the Court may rely upon those portions of the statements made under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. which support the prosecution case, provided such portions are considered in conjunction with the evidence on record and not in isolation. In this connection, paragraph 10 of the above case, being relevant, is extracted herein below:
“10. The answers by an accused under Section 313 of the Cr.PC are of relevance for finding out the truth and examining the veracity of the case of the prosecution. The scope of Section 313 of the Cr.PC is wide and is not a mere formality. Let us examine the essential features of this section and the principles of law as enunciated by judgments, which are the guiding factors for proper application and consequences which shall flow from the provisions of Section 313 of the Cr.PC. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.PC is to put all incriminating evidence to the accused so as to provide him an opportunity to explain such incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. At the same time, also permit him to put forward his own version or reasons, if he so chooses, in relation to his involvement or otherwise in the crime. The Court has been empowered to examine the accused but only after the prosecution evidence has been concluded. It is a mandatory obligation upon the Court and, besides ensuring the compliance thereof, the Court has to keep in mind that the accused gets a fair chance to explain his conduct. The option lies with the accused to maintain silence coupled with simplicitor denial or, in the alternative, to explain his version and reasons, for his alleged involvement in the commission of crime. This is the statement which the accused makes without fear or right of the other party to cross-examine him. However, if the statements made are false,
Page No.# 52/55
the Court is entitled to draw adverse inferences and pass consequential orders, as may be called for, in accordance with law. The primary purpose is to establish a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused and to put every important incriminating piece of evidence to the accused and grant him an opportunity to answer and explain. Once such a statement is recorded, the next question that has to be considered by the Court is to what extent and consequences such statement can be used during the enquiry and the trial. Over the period of time, the Courts have explained this concept and now it has attained, more or less, certainty in the field of criminal jurisprudence. The statement of the accused can be used to test the veracity of the exculpatory of the admission, if any, made by the accused. It can be taken into consideration in any enquiry or trial but still it is not strictly evidence in the case. The provisions of Section 313 (4) of Cr.PC explicitly provides that the answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such enquiry or trial and put in evidence for or against the accused in any other enquiry into or trial for, any other offence for which such answers may tend to show he has committed. In other words, the use is permissible as per the provisions of the Code but has its own limitations. The Courts may rely on a portion of the statement of the accused and find him guilty in consideration of the other evidence against him led by the prosecution, however, such statements made under this Section should not be considered in isolation but in conjunction with evidence adduced by the prosecution. Another important caution that Courts have declared in the pronouncements is that conviction of the accused cannot be based merely on the statement made under Section 313 of the Cr.PC as it cannot be regarded as a substantive piece of evidence. In the case of Vijendrajit v. State of Bombay, [AIR 1953 SC 247], the Court held as under:
"(3). .................As the appellant admitted that he was in charge of the godown, further evidence was not led on the point. The Magistrate was in this situation fully justified in referring to the statement of the accused under S.342 as supporting the prosecution case concerning the possession of the godown. The contention that the Magistrate made use of the inculpatory part of the accused's statement and excluded the exculpatory part does not seem to be correct. The statement under S.342 did not consist
Page No.# 53/55
of two portions, part inculpatory and part exculpatory. It concerned itself with two facts. The accused admitted that he was in charge of the godown, he denied that the rectified spirit was found in that godown. He alleged that the rectified spirit was found outside it. This part of his statement was proved untrue by the prosecution evidence and had no intimate connection with the statement concerning the possession of the godown."
67. The Court has also considered the aspect of non-recovery of the weapon of offence in the instant case. As per the prosecution story, the same was thrown at the place where the weekly Sunday market is held, the day after the incident in the instant case. The police stated that they could not recover the weapon of offence. This Court is of the opinion that, in all cases, the recovery of the weapon of offence is not always necessary and its absence may not be fatal depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the significance of non-recovery always depends on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as other circumstances and evidence brought on record by the prosecution. In this connection, the case of Lakshmi and Others v. State of UP , reported in (2002) 7 SCC 198 , can be referred to. Paragraph 16, being relevant, is extracted herein below:
“16. Undoubtedly, the identification of the body, cause of death and recovery of weapon with which injury may have been inflicted on the deceased are some of the important factors to be established by the prosecution in an ordinary given case to bring home the charge of offence under Section 302 IPC. This, however, is not an inflexible rule. It cannot be held as a general and broad proposition of law that where these aspects are not established, it would be fatal to the case of the prosecution and in all cases and eventualities, it ought to result in the acquittal of those who may be charged with the offence of murder. It would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. A charge of murder may stand established against an accused even in the absence of identification of the body and cause of the death.”
Page No.# 54/55
68. Before concluding, this Court is of the opinion that the case laws referred to by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant should also be discussed. The case of Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh , reported in (2023) 16 SCC 510 , relates to extrajudicial confession. The learned counsel argued that the extra-judicial confession in the instant case has no relevance before this Court and cannot be taken into account. However, in the case of Ramanand (supra), the facts were entirely different, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the extra-judicial confession on the ground that the accused in that case was not in a position to make an extra-judicial confession, being not a free person at that point of time. Therefore, it was found highly improbable that the accused could have made the extra-judicial confession. In the case in hand, the Appellant was in a position to make an extra-judicial confession, as there is nothing on record to suggest otherwise. It is also a fact that, in the instant case, the Appellant was convicted not solely on the basis of the extra-judicial confession, but also on the basis of other relevant circumstantial evidence available against him.
69. The learned counsel for the Appellant further relied on the case of Ramanand (supra) to contend that the statement of the Appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be relied upon in the absence of other circumstantial evidence proving the guilt of the Appellant. In this connection, she submitted that the prosecution had sought to rely on the circumstances allegedly arising against the Appellant from his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding the blood seen on his right hand by PW-8. However, in the case in hand, it is seen from the discussion above that the Appellant was not convicted solely on the basis of the statement of Appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., regarding the deposition of PW-8. In the instant case, there are circumstances independent of
Page No.# 55/55
the aforesaid statement which strongly indicates the involvement of the Appellant in the commission of the offence. The non-denial by the Appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. serves only as an additional link in the prosecution’s chain of evidence, further strengthening the prosecution’s case. The circumstantial evidence available in the case is sufficient to uphold the prosecution’s story, which could not be shaken or disturbed by the defence.
70. From the aforesaid discussions, the materials available on record, the evidence of the witnesses, the Trial Court records, and the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, we find that there is no infirmity in the Judgment and Order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, West Kameng District, Bomdila, dated 30.04.2021. Accordingly, the instant criminal appeal is dismissed.
71. Send back the Trial Court Record.
72. For the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. G. Tarak, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for Respondent No. 2, the Arunachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority shall pay him a fee as may be stipulated in this regard.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC resting on circumstantial evidence, including last-seen evidence, motive, absconding and non-denial under Section 313 CrPC, was sustainable.
Whether non-recovery of the weapon of offence and absence of a test identification parade vitiated the prosecution case.
Whether the alleged extra-judicial confession could be relied upon.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rohtash Kumar v. State of HaryanaRelied on¶61
(2013) 14 SCC 434 · Who else cites this
Siddharth Vashisht alias Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)Relied on¶63
(2010) 6 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer SinghApplied¶65
2025 SCC Online Supreme Court 390 · Who else cites this
Sanatan Naskar and Another v. State of West BengalRelied on¶67
AIR 2010 SC 3570 · Who else cites this
Lakshmi and Others v. State of UPRelied on¶68
(2002) 7 SCC 198 · Who else cites this
Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar PradeshDistinguished¶69
(2023) 16 SCC 510 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sagar Sobar
The State of AP
Nyakam Rangmo
Nelson Sailo
Anjan Moni Kalita
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
