DIBAKER NUNIA & ANR. versus THE STATE OF ASSAM

Citation: [2022] 6 S.C.R. 1151 · Decided: 30-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1151
DIBAKER NUNIA & ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF ASSAM
(Criminal Appeal No. 962 of 2011)
AUGUST 30, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 34 – Eye-witnesses, when not
reliable – Person brutally assaulted, received multiple injuries on
vital parts, died – Appellants convicted u/s.302/34 – On appeal,
held: Findings in question are based essentially on the testimony of
parents of the deceased, PW-2 and PW-3, the alleged eye-witnesses
– Allegedly, they saw their son being assaulted by two persons with
weapon – PW-2 allegedly fell unconscious after seeing the blood
oozing from the body of his son – Thus, it is difficult to appreciate
that they would go home, take meal and go to bed without bothering
about the welfare of their injured son – Such a conduct in normal
course, would be unreasonable and unacceptable, as also observed
by High Court – This coupled with the fact that they allegedly
narrated the incident to PW-1 (deceased’s brother) only when he
reached home after having seen his dead body and then the FIR
was lodged next morning at 10 a.m – However, the High Court held
that since the deceased was involved in several quarrels with other
people to the knowledge of his parents and this background of the
deceased explained their exit from the place of occurrence and also
of their going to sleep – Not accepted – Prosecution case not
supported by independent witnesses – Testimony of PW-2 and PW-
3 could not have been accepted as that of eye-witnesses to the
incident – Hence, the appellants could not be convicted even if
named in FIR – Prosecution is expected to prove its case and to
substantiate the charge beyond reasonable doubt – Doubts
reasonably arising in the matter were brushed aside by High Court
– Approach of Trial Court accepting the testimony of PW-2 and
PW-3 observing that there was no reason for them to implicate anyone
except the real culprit, is based on assumptions – On evidence,
difficult to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that appellants alone
were the authors of the injuries – Order of High Court and Sessions
Court set aside – Appellants acquitted.
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 1151
1151
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
Criminal Law – Concurrent findings of fact – Interference by
Supreme Court – When appropriate – Held: Ordinarily, in an appeal
by special leave against concurrent findings of fact, Supreme Court
would not enter into re-appreciation of evidence – However, if the
assessment of the Trial Court and High Court is vitiated by any
error of law or procedure or misreading of evidence or any disregard
to the norms of judicial process leading to serious prejudice or
injustice, Supreme Court may consider interference in an appropriate
case to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Criminal Law – “reasonable doubt” – What is – Held: A
reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt but a fair doubt based
upon reasons and common sense – It must grow out of the evidence
in the case – When a reasonable doubt arises in a matter, benefit of
doubt must be given to the accused.
Bhaskar Ramappa Madar & Ors. v. State of Karnataka:
(2009) Cri. L.J. 2422 (SC) – relied on.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
962 of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.09.2009 of the High Court
of Gauhati, Gauhati in Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2006.
Varinder Kumar Sharma, Parul Sharma, Shantanu Sharma, Advs.
for the Appellants.
Debojit Borkakati, Adv., for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
17.09.2009, as passed by the Gauhati High Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 79 of 2006, whereby the High Court has dismissed the appeal filed
by the present appellants and has affirmed the judgment and order dated
16.02.2006, as passed by the Session Court, Cachar, Silchar, Assam in
Sessions Case No. 37 of 2003 convicting the appellants of offence under
Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and awarding the
sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- each
with default stipulations.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1153
2. Briefly put, the relevant background aspects of the matter are
as follows:
On 01.10.1999, at about 10 a.m., PW-1 Amrit Tanti lodged F.I.R.
at the Ghungoor Police Outpost, stating that on the previous day, at
about 12:30 midnight, while he was returning home from Sonai after an
election campaign, he found a man lying in front of Congre

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.