Crl.A./10/2022 on 6 August, 2026

August 7, 2026

Gauhati High Court

Crl.A./10/2022 on 6 August, 2026

2. A First Information Report was lodged before Panikhaiti Police Out post by
the father of the victim on 18.12.2015, stating inter alia that his daughter was
admitted at Guwahati Medical College and Hospital, due to some gynecological
issues and that she underwent a caesarean delivery and that she gave birth to a
stillborn baby. The informant further stated that from the said hospital he
brought his daughter to his house to take care of her and that on 17.12.2015,
the appellant, appellant’s mother and the appellant’s aunt came to his house
and when the informant was absent at his home, the said appellant along with
his family members killed his daughter by beating her. The police on receipt of
the Ejahar, registered the case as Pragjyotishpur P.S. Case No. 192/2015, under
Section 302 of the IPC and on completion of the investigation submitted Charge
Sheet on 31.01.2016, against the appellant and his mother. Thereafter,
necessary procedures were undertaken and the trial against the appellant and
his mother commenced.

SPONSORED

3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No. 3 Kamrup (M), Guwahati,
framed charges against the appellant and his mother on 13.05.2016 under
Sections 302/304(B), read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. The prosecution had
examined 10 (ten) nos. of witnesses including the Medical Doctor as well as the
Investigating Officer and thereafter, the appellant was examined under Section
313 of the Cr.P.C. The appellant had produced 5 (five) nos. of defence witnesses
including himself and after completion of the trial, the learned Trial Court had
convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him as
mentioned above. The Trial Court however, acquitted the mother of the
appellant under Section 302/304(B) of the IPC on the ground of insufficiency of
evidence. It is this order of conviction and sentence that the appellant has
challenged before this Court by filing the present criminal appeal.

Page No.# 4/22

EVIDENCE :

4. PW No. 1, is the informant of this case and he stated before the Trial
Court that after his daughter gave birth to a stillborn baby in 2015. He brought
her home and that the appellant along with his mother and another came to his
house on 17.12.2015. He further stated that when he and his wife went to the
market leaving his two daughters in the house along with the victim, his
younger daughter informed him over telephone that the appellant and his
mother had killed his daughter. This witness further stated that when he
reached home, he found that his daughter was already taken to the hospital and
he later on found out that his daughter died on her way to the hospital. This
witness further stated, that appellant tried to flee from the place of occurrence
but the police caught him and also that the police came in the night and seized
an iron bar on being shown by the appellant. During the cross-examination, this
witness however stated that he did not witness the incident of assault.

5. PW No. 2 and PW No. 3 are the eye witnesses in this case and PW No. 2,
who is the sister of the deceased deposed before the trial court, that they were
at home on the night of occurrence and her parents had gone to the market.

This witness further stated that, the deceased requested her at around 04:00
PM, that she is feeling cold and that a fire should be lit, at which this witness lit
the fire and that the accused persons also went near the fire to warm
themselves up. She further stated that at that point of time, took the deceased’s
daughter to sleep and when she was inside the house, she heard sounds of
striking someone with iron bars and when she went to the place, where the
deceased sister was warming herself and was talking to the appellant and his
relatives, she saw that the appellant was assaulting the deceased with an iron
pipe and also saw the mother of the appellant assaulting the deceased with her
Page No.# 5/22

hands. She also stated that, due to the assault meted out to her sister, her
sister fell down but then still the appellant and his relatives continued to assault
her and that the accused persons were saying that they did not want a
daughter-in-law and also that the appellant shouted that the deceased should
be left dead. This witness then shouted and hearing her, the mother of the
appellant and the other relative fled from the place of occurrence. However, this
witness stated that she did not see the appellant then. She thereafter, stated
that she called the ambulance and the appellant came and took her sister to the
hospital. This witness had also stated about the dying declaration made by the
deceased, wherein, the deceased told her that the appellant and his relatives
assaulted her for not giving them a male child and also for money.

This witness was cross-examined by the prosecution and during the same
she reiterated that she had lit fire by the side of the courtyard on the night of
the occurrence and that the appellant had hit on the head of her sister from
behind with an iron pipe. She also reiterated that, the mother of the appellant
also assaulted her sister with hand and the assault was also made by the sister
of the appellant. She further stated that, she and the appellant accompanied
her sister in the ambulance to the hospital and that the appellant told her that
he wanted a male child and that his mother wanted money. This witness has
also stated in her cross-examination, that one day prior to the death of her
sister, the appellant demanded property from her.

6. PW No. 3, who is the other sister of the deceased was examined by the
Trial Court and she stated similarly as that of PW No. 2, and further stated that
her elder sister, i.e. the deceased gave birth to a stillborn baby and after that,
her sister had stayed in the house of her father. This witness stated that around
04:00 PM, the appellant, his mother and their neighbour’s mother came to their
Page No.# 6/22

house at around 04:00 PM on 17.12.2015, and that half an hour later, her
parents went to the market and that her elder sister, i.e. PW No. 2, the
deceased, the two year old daughter of the deceased, the appellant, his mother
and her neighbour’s mother were present in the house. She further stated that,
on being requested by the deceased, her elder sister, i.e. PW2, lit a fire in the
courtyard. She thereafter, stated that around 06:30 PM, when she was watching
TV inside her house with her niece and when her other elder sister was
preparing tea in the kitchen, she heard a sound outside and upon coming out,
she saw the deceased lying on the ground and further saw, the appellant
beating her on her head with an iron stick. This witness further stated that she
also saw the mother of the appellant and the neighbour’s mother assaulting the
victim on her back with their legs. She also stated that, when she asked as to
why they were beating her sister, the appellant replied that her father cannot
give money and that victim also cannot give birth to a baby. So he said that he
will kill her. This witness also stated that the mother of the appellant asked the
appellant to kill her sister and that she would get him married for the second
time. This witness, thereafter stated that, an ambulance was called and her
sister was taken to the hospital.

Thereafter, this witness was cross-examined at length by the defence and
she reiterated that, her sister gave birth to a stillborn baby boy and thereafter,
came to their place to stay with them. She further reiterated that when she
heard the sound of hitting with an iron pipe, she came out and saw the
appellant assaulting her elder sister with a rod and also saw the mother of the
appellant and the other relative kicking her elder sister with their legs and when
she asked the appellant the reason for assaulting her sister, the appellant stated
that he will kill her as was stated in examination-in-chief. During her cross-

Page No.# 7/22

examination, this witness also stated that the deceased before meeting her
death, told her that the appellant assaulted her for money and for not getting a
male baby. She also stated in her cross-examination, that her elder sister, i.e.,
PW2, the appellant and one neighbour went along with the victim to the
hospital.

7. A neighbour was examined as PW4, and he stated that, on the night of
the occurrence at around 06:00 PM, while he was returning from his office, he
saw that the victim was laid beside the road by her husband, i.e. the appellant
and the victim was taken to the hospital. This witness also stated that the
sisters of the victim told him that, when the victim was warming herself beside
the fire, the appellant assaulted her on her head.

8. PW No. 5, is another neighbour, who similarly stated that while he was
returning from office, he saw a gathering of people in front of his house and he
came to know from them that the appellant had assaulted his wife and that she
was taken to the hospital but the doctor declared her dead.

9. PW No. 6, is yet another neighbour and he stated before the Trial Court,
that he heard, that the quarrel had taken place in the house of the deceased’s
father and that the quarrel was between the deceased and her husband,
wherein, she was assaulted and that the victim was taken to the hospital.

10. PW No. 7, also a neighbour, deposed before the Trial Court that, upon
hearing a hue and cry in the house of the deceased’s father, he went inside and
saw the deceased lying with injuries and that he along with others lifted the
victim in the ambulance and that he saw injuries on the rear side of the victim’s
head. He further stated that, the appellant helped in taking the victim to the
hospital along with others.

Page No.# 8/22

11. PW No. 8, who had a shop near the house of the informant stated that
while he was in the shop, the victim was taken to the hospital. She stated that,
when she later went to the house of the informant, the sisters of the deceased
told her that appellant had assaulted the deceased.

12. The doctor, who conducted the postmortem report was examined as PW
No. 9 and he stated before the Trial Court, that on examination of the body, he
found 11 (eleven) nos. of injuries. The injuries narrated by the doctor are
reproduced below:

1. A lacerated injury over the outer cathartic over left eye measuring 2 X 0.5
X 0.25 cm.

2. A abstain over the left cheek measuring 3 X 1 cm.

3. A brouse above the left eye measuring 2 X 1 cms.

4. A brouse over the forehead on the left side measuring 3 X 1 cm.

5. A lacerated wound over the vertex on the left side measuring 3 X 1 X 0.25
cms.

6. A lacerated wound over the vertex on the right side measuring 2 X 1 X
0.25 cms.

7. A lacerated wound over the vertex on the middle front side measuring 2 X
1 X 0.5 cms.

8. A lacerated injury over the vertex in the middle side measuring 2 X 1 X 0.5
cms.

9. A lacerated injury over the vertex in the middle on frostier aspect
measuring 2 X 1 X 0.25 cms.

10. A lacerated injury over the right occipital region measuring 3 X 1 X 0.5
cms.

11. A lacerated injury over the right occipital region measuring 5 X 1.5 cms
Page No.# 9/22

with depressed fracture.

The doctor opined that the death was due to coma, as a result of the
injuries to the head and that the injuries were ante mortem in nature and was
caused by blunt force impact and also that the same were homicidal in nature.

13. The investigating Officer was examined as PW No. 10, and he deposed
before the Trial Court that he received an information about an altercation at
07:20 PM on 17.12.2015, and that he entered the GD entry and proceeded to
the place of occurrence and that, while he was proceeding, he got the
information that the victim girl was sent to the hospital and as such, he
proceeded to the hospital and in the hospital he came to know that the victim
girl died and on the further information, that the appellant was already
apprehended and was detained at Bhangagarh Police Station, he went for
interrogation. This witness further stated that on 18.12.2015, he went to the
place of occurrence and did the necessary investigation including the
preparation of the sketch map as well as the recovery of the iron pipe with one
iron metal. He also examined the witnesses connected with the case.

During cross-examination, he submitted that he does not know, whether
any blood stain was found on the iron pipe and that, he found blood stain at the
place of occurrence but then he did not collect the sample.

14. On completion of the examination of the witnesses produced by the
prosecution, the Trial Court examined the appellant under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. and in reply to the queries regarding the incriminating circumstances, he
denied all the charges and stated that false case has been filed against him and
his mother. With regard to the query, as to whether, he would adduce any
evidence, the appellant replied in affirmative. Pursuant to the said examination
of the appellant as well as his mother, 5 (five) nos. of defence witnesses were
Page No.# 10/22

produced and the brief statement of the said witnesses are reproduced below :

15. The appellant examined himself as DW1, and he stated before the Trial
Court, that on 12.05.2015, his wife came to Guwahti on being informed that her
father underwent an eye operation. He further stated that in the month of June,
his wife intimated him, that she is finding difficult to stay at her parental house
and told him to bring certain articles. He further stated that, he came down to
Guwahati and stayed in the house of his father-in-law. He then stated that his
wife delivered a stillborn baby and stayed at her parent’s house. This witness
further stated that, on the night of occurrence, when he, his wife and other
members were warming themselves near the fire, his sister-in-law brought some
snacks for them to which he stated that he does not want to eat and stood up
and left the place. This witness thereafter, stated that after sometime he came
back and he saw his wife hitting herself with an iron pipe and he asked her
whether she had gone mad and that he threw the iron pipe by taking it from
her. At this, the family members reached the place of occurrence and that his
wife was taken to the hospital. He also stated that, while she was taken to the
hospital, the victim fell down a number of times. During the cross-examination,
this witness further reiterated that the victim had inflicted injury on her head by
herself and sustained grievous wound.

16. The mother of the appellant was examined as DW No. 2, and she stated
that the father of the victim had called her to his house and that she along with
other, reached the house of the victim and that she left the place of the victim
by boarding an auto-rickshaw and that, further she does not know what
happened thereafter. During the cross-examination, she, however, stated that
the victim had not assaulted herself.

17. The father of DW No. 2, was examined as DW No. 3 and he stated that,
Page No.# 11/22

the appellant is his grandson and that, one day he went to the house of his
daughter but did not find her there and came to know that police had taken his
daughter away.

18. One acquaintance of the appellant was examined as DW 4, and he stated
that on the day of occurrence, he went to the house of the mother of the
appellant and met her near the shop of the concerned locality and that, he
spoke with her at around 05:00 to 05:30 PM. In his cross-examination, he
stated that, on the next day he came to know that the appellant and his
mother were arrested.

19. Similar statement was made by DW No. 5, who also stated that on
17.12.2015, while going to the market, she met the mother of the appellant at
around 03:30 PM and that, on the next day she saw on the television that the
appellant and his mother were arrested. These are the evidence put forth by the
prosecution as well as defence in the present case.

SUBMISSIONS :

20. Mr. A. C. Sarma, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Das,
learned counsel submitted before this Court, that the appellant was innocent
and that he is not involved in killing of the deceased. He placed the statements
made by the Investigating Officer during the cross-examination, wherein, the
said I.O., stated that it is not a fact, that appellant had actually assaulted the
victim. He further submitted that there is no motive discernable in the facts of
the case as the same has not been stated by any of the witnesses. He stressed
on his submission, that the injuries, found on the body of the victim was self-

inflicted, i.e. by the victim herself, at the spur of the moment, during the
quarrel, which had taken place between her and her husband and other
Page No.# 12/22

relatives.

21. On the other hand, Mr. K. K. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State, submits that the instant case rests on ocular evidence and that
PW2 and PW3 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. He submits that the said
witnesses had stated clearly before the Trial Court, that they have seen the
appellant assaulting the deceased by an iron pipe and that, the statement of the
said eye witnesses were not demolished by the defence during the cross-
examination of the said witnesses. He further submits that the statement made
by the said eye witnesses before the Magistrate under Section 164, Cr.P.C. had
corroborated their statements before the Trial Court.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:

22. It is seen, that the present case, rests on ocular evidence and there are
two witnesses, who had claimed to have seen the occurrence and they are PW
No. 2 and PW No. 3. The Hon’ble Apex court in the Case of ” Shahaja @
Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shakh Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in (2022) 10

Scale 290, had observed the Principles that should be taken into account, while

appreciating ocular evidence. The Apex Court had held as follows:

“27. The appreciation of evidence is a hard task. There is no fixed or straight-
jacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence. The judicially evolved
principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case can be
enumerated as under:

I. While appreciating the whether the evidence of the witness
read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that
impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the more
particularly keeping in view the ocular evidence of a witness, the
approach must be Court to scrutinize the evidence deficiencies,
drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole
Page No.# 13/22

and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general
tenor as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is
against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness
and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as
to render it unworthy of belief.

II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the
opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of
evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not
this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of
evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty
and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on
the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of
trivial details.

III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for
him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind
that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are
so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court
is justified in jettisoning his evidence.

IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core
of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn
out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching
importance to some technical error committed by the
investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not
ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.

V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in
the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of
two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness)
is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.

VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a
photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It
Page No.# 14/22

is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.

VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events.

The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so
often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore
cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. VIII. The
powers of observation differ from person to person.

VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What
one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might
emboss its image on one person’s mind whereas it might go
unnoticed on the part of another.

IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation
and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them.
They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is
unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.

X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of
an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess
work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And
one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable
estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of
individuals which varies from person to person.

XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately
the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in
a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up
when interrogated later on.

XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by
the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by
counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused
regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination
on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness
sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or
Page No.# 15/22

being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and
honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.

XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the
evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to
contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to
discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at
variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to
contradict that witness.”

23. It is therefore, seen from the above, that while appreciating, the evidence
of a eye witness, it has to be further seen as to whether, the evidence of the
said witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth and once, the
same is noticed the Court, should scrutinize the evidence put forth by the eye
witness with regard to the deficiencies, draw backs and infirmities, if found
therein, and thereafter, evaluate them to find out as to whether, the evidence is
worthy of belief. The general tenor of the evidence given by the witness should
also be evaluated. It is also held by the Apex Court, that if there are minor
variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details, the same cannot result in
the evidence being discarded. It is also held that, when an eye witness is
examined at length and is also cross-examined, it is possible that some
discrepancies are present in the same.

24. It has also been observed by the Apex Court that minor discrepancies
which do not touch the core of the prosecution case, in fact, lend support to the
prosecution case, in view of the fact that perfect eye witness statement without
an iota of discrepancy shows, that the witness is tutored.

25. In the instant case, it is seen that PW2 and PW3, had stated in similar
terms corroborating the statement of each other. PW2 had stated that her sister,
i.e. the deceased on feeling cold requested her to lit a fire to which she did and
Page No.# 16/22

she saw her sister as well as the appellant and other family members warming
themselves around the fire and then she went inside taking the victim’s
daughter, who was feeling sleepy. It is the further statement of the said witness,
that when she reached inside her house, she heard the sound of striking
someone with an iron bar and when she came out and went near her victim
sister, she saw the appellant assaulting her sister with the iron pipe and also
saw the mother of the appellant assaulting her with hands. This witness also
stated about the statement made by the appellant as well as his mother as
stated above. Similarly, PW No. 3, who is the other sister of the victim, deposed
that her victim sister had felt cold and that, PW2 had lit a fire and by the side of
that fire, the victim sister as well as her husband and other relatives were
warming themselves and that she was inside the house watching TV. This
witness stated, like PW2, that she heard a sound and when she came out, she
saw her victim sister lying on the ground and the appellant assaulting on her
head with an iron stick. She also saw the mother of the appellant assaulting
with her legs and she also stated that a upon asking the reasons for assault, the
appellant told her that her father cannot give any money and the victim could
not give him a baby. This witness also stated that PW No. 2, along with the
appellant took the victim to the hospital as stated by PW No. 2, who had
deposed that she along with the appellant had taken the victim sister to the
hospital.

26. During the cross-examination of both the witnesses, it is seen, that they
had reiterated the statement made by them in examination-in-chief and they
had stated that when they came out, they saw, the appellant assaulting their
victim sister. As such, the statement of the eye witnesses displayed a ring of
truth and by scrutinizing the said evidences, no deficiencies, draw backs and
Page No.# 17/22

infirmities were found. Although the said statement of both the witnesses was
not exactly the same, i.e. in the same words but the incident was stated
similarly, by both the witnesses Even the weapon used by the appellant was
stated as the same by both the witnesses and both the witnesses have stated
that the appellant had hit the victim sister on her head.

27. The evidence of the doctor, who was examined as PW No. 9, also
corroborates the fact stated by the eye witnesses. The doctor had found 11
(eleven) nos. of injures on back side of the head, eyes, forehead, on vertex as
well as on the occipital region of the head including a fracture on the said
occipital region. The doctor had also stated that the injuries were caused by
blunt force impact which supports the statement of the eye witnesses that an
iron rod was used. The injuries stated by the doctor supports fully the
prosecution case, as it has been stated by the eye witnesses that the victim was
assaulted on the head by the appellant by using the iron rod.

28. It is also seen in the evidence of PW Nos. 4 and 8, that when they reached
the place of occurrence, the two sisters of the victim had revealed to them that
the appellant had hit the victim. These pieces of evidence are relevant under
Section 4 of the Evidence Act, as res gestae evidence. This Court in “Atul
Hazarika Vs. State of Assam” reported in (2014) 1GLR 314, had observed about

the principle of res gestae evidence and the same are quoted below:

“15. In order to be a part of res gestae, it must have been made substantially
contemporaneous with the act or immediately after the act so that there is no
opportunity for reflection or fabrication. It is in this background that the
interval between the act and the statement assumes significance. The
statement, which is in the nature of a mere declaration or narration of a past
event, cannot be termed as res gestae. Such a statement becomes relevant,
because the statement is intimately connected with the facts and the statement
Page No.# 18/22

is, in effect, spontaneous utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion,
there being no opportunity for making a deliberately fabricated statement.

16. The above aspects of res gestae were aptly discussed in R. Vs. Andrews
(1987) 1 All ER 513. The observations, made therein, are as follows: The
primary question which the Judge must ask himself is: can the possibility of
concoction or distortion be disregarded? To answer that question the Judge
must first consider the circumstances in which the particular statement was
made, in order to satisfy himself that the event was so unusual or startling or
dramatic as to dominate the thoughts of the victim, so that his utterances was
an instinctive reaction to that event thus giving no real opportunity for
reasoned reflection. In such a situation, the Judge would be entitled to conclude
that the involvement or the pressure of the event would exclude all possibility
of concoction or distortion provided that the statement was made in conditions
of approximate but not exact contemporaneity. In order for the statement to be
sufficiently spontaneous, it must be so closely associated with the event which
has excited the statement that it can be fairly stated that the mind of the
declarant was still dominated by the event Thus, the Judge must be satisfied
that the event which provided the trigger mechanism for the statement was
still operative.

17. In Thakur Das Vs. State of HP MANU/HP/0040/1991 : 1992 CrILJ 2415
(HP), the witnesses deposed that a woman, who was present near the scene of
occurrence, had come running to the market crying for help and informing
them that the accused had set his wife on fire by pouring kerosene oil. This
statement was held to be res gestae as connected to the facts in issue, namely,
‘accused setting his wife on fire by pouring kerosene’.

18. In the case of Chander Kala Vs. Ram Kishan MANU/SC/0108/1985 :

(1985) 4 SCC 212, the scope of res gestae has been enlarged by the Supreme
Court. The facts of the case were that complainant alleged that the accused
had, by reasons of familiarity, obtained the signatures of the complainant with
a view to blackmail her. The complainant went home and narrated the events
to her husband and, on the next day, to her colleagues. The question, which
Page No.# 19/22

arose, was whether the statement, made to the colleagues, would form res
gestae. The Supreme Court held that assuming that the complainant’s conduct
in narrating to her colleagues what had transpired is not res gestae and it
would be inadmissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act, yet the same, when
corroborated by the witnesses, who had heard the narration, is clearly
admissible, under Section 157 Evidence Act, for the purpose of corroboration.

19. It must be noted that when, on principle, it is said that a statement,
made under Section 6, is an exception to the hearsay rule, it should not be
contused as making relevant hearsay evidence. Section 60 of the Evidence Act
prescribes the mode of direct oral evidence and any evidence, which does not
satisfy the test of Section 60, is hearsay and, hence, inadmissible. The term
‘hearsay’, in the context of Section 6, actually means ‘hearsay’ to the facts in
issue. ”

As such, it is seen that immediately after the occurrence, when the witnesses
states the facts to others regarding the occurrence, the same becomes the
events connected with each other and the same are liable to be relied on.

29. Although the appellant had adduced evidence by examining himself and
by examination of his mother, the said evidences falls flat on the ground, in as
much as, in the evidence, put forth by the appellant, he stated that the victim
had hit herself with an iron pipe and that he asked her as to whether, she has
gone mad and that, thereafter he pulled the iron pipe away and threw it,
whereas, the mother of the appellant had stated, during the cross-examination,
that the victim had not assaulted herself. The statements of other defense
witnesses that they met the mother of the appellant near her place also do not
lend support to the defense case, since, it is in the evidence that the mother of
the appellant was in the house of the victim’s father on the day of the
occurrence.

Page No.# 20/22

30. It is also noticed that the eye witnesses, i.e. PW No. 2 and 3, had made
statements before the Magistrate, under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and during
the said statement, PW No. 2, Bijuli Choudhury, stated that on 17.12.2015, her
bother-in-law, i.e. the appellant, the mother of her bother-in-law and another
came to their house and when they were all warming themselves beside the fire
lit by her and when she went inside to see her niece, she heard sounds of iron
bars striking against one other and when she came out, she saw appellant
assaulting her elder sister on her head. She also stated that the mother of the
appellant had also assaulted her elder sister. This witness again stated that at
that juncture, her younger sister, i.e., PW No. 3 has also come out. In the said
statement, the said witness had also stated about the dying declaration made
by the victim sister. Similarly, PW No. 3, namely, Priya Choudhury, stated before
the Magistrate, that when the victim sister, her relatives were warming
themselves beside the fire and when she was inside the house, she heard a
sound of hitting with iron and she went out and saw her elder sister, i.e. the
victim lying on the ground and further saw the appellant assaulting her elder
sister with an iron bar. This witness also stated about the subsequent
statements made by the appellant and his mother after hitting the victim. She
also stated about the dying declaration made by the victim sister. As such, it is
noticed that both the eye witnesses by their statements recorded by the
Magistrate had corroborated their statements recorded during the trial. As such,
there is nothing to disbelieve PW Nos. 2 & 3 for being the eye witnesses in the
instant case.

31. As far as the oral dying declaration is concerned, it is a settled position of
law, that the same is reliable when it is corroborated by other evidence on
record. In the present case, the oral dying declaration given by the victim was
Page No.# 21/22

corroborated by the evidence of the eye witnesses that is her sisters. The Apex
Court had held that prudence requires that oral dying declaration should be
backed by the corroboration. The Apex Court in “Heikrujum Chaoba Singh Vs.
State of Manipur“, reported in (1999) 8 SCC 458; also as held as follows:

“An oral dying declaration no doubt can form the basis of conviction, though
the Courts seek for corroboration as a rule of prudence. But before the said
declaration can be acted upon, the Court must be satisfied about the
truthfulness of the same and that the said declaration was made by the
deceased while he was in a fit condition to make the statement. The dying
declaration has to be taken as a whole and the witness who deposes about such
oral declaration to him must pass the scrutiny of reliability”.

32. In the instant case, it is seen that the oral dying declaration has been
supported by the evidence of not only the eye witnesses but also by other
evidences on record as mentioned above.

CONCLUSIONS :

33. In view of the statements of the eye witnesses i.e. the ocular evidence in
the instant case coupled with the oral dying declaration made by the victim, this
court finds that the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge FTC No. 3 Kamrup, in Sessions Case No. 131/2016, convicting
the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentencing him to rigorous
imprisonment for life with fine and default stipulation as correct in the eyes of
law.

34. Resultantly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

35. No order as to costs.

Page No.# 22/22

36. Send back the records.

JUDGE JUDGE

Amit
Digitally signed by Amit Das
DN: c=IN, o=Personal,
postalCode=783380, l=Bongaigaon,
st=Assam, street=Nataji Nagar ,Babupara,
Bongaigaon, Bongaigaon Assam India
783380, title=7232,
2.5.4.20=03e4fb506e793dc06e715bc4085

Das
056004e440b7e9d5cf4cfd09adf707c28e4
c8,
serialNumber=77a8b780f0bf03e8b7f517b
45ea6e22a8edd4f96fbabe26b1a5d94276
4139af4, [email protected],
cn=Amit Das
Date: 2026.08.06 15:05:52 +05’30’

Comparing Assistant

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Crl.A./10/2022 on 6 August, 2026

Gauhati High Court