Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010007762013 2025:GAU-AS:12820 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.A./158/2013 REKHA GOWALA D/O LATE RAJESH GOWAJA, R/O VILL. JHAPA BASTI, DULIAJAN, UNDER DULIAJAN POLICE STATION, IN THE DIST. OF DIBRUGARH, WITHIN THE STATE OF ASSAM. VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.K M SARMA, MR.D DAS,MD.A HUSSAIN,MR.K SARMA,MR.K CHOUDHURY,MR.M BERIA Advocate for the Respondent : , ,,PP, ASSAM,, Page No.# 2/10 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Date : 17-09-2025 Heard Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 15.05.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in convicting the accused/appellant, Smt. Rekha Gowala, under Section 201 IPC, 1860 and sentencing her to undergo R.I for 5(five) years and also to pay fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand), in default to pay fine to undergo S.I for 3(three) months in Sessions Case No. 93/2009 arising out of G.R Case No.1267/2004 originally registered under Section 302/201/34 of IPC, 1860. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Shri Motilal Gowala, son of Sunu Gowala of Village – Balimara under Duliajan Police Station had lodged an F.I.R. before the said Police Station on 31.07.2004, alleging inter alia that his son Jiten Gowala who used to live in the house of his father-in-law i.e. Rajesh Gowala along with his wife and two minor children, was assaulted by the accused/appellant and her father on 22.07.2004 and thereafter, his son was missing from the house of his father-in-law and ultimately his dead body was found in the toilet ditch of one Suren Modi. Upon receipt of the said F.I.R., the Police have registered a case and started investigation and after that they submitted the charge-sheet under Section 302/201/34 of the IPC, 1860 and Page No.# 3/10 sent up the accused/appellant for trial. 4. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, the I.O. laid Charge-Sheet against the present accused/appellant before the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh on 31.10.2004 under Sections 302/201/34 of the IPC, 1860. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, after considering the materials available on record and also finding prima facie case, framed charge against the present accused/appellant under the aforesaid Sections. The charges were read over and explained to the accused/appellant, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. During the trial of the case, the prosecution examined as many as 7 (seven) numbers of witnesses including the I.O. and the Medical Officer. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, after hearing the parties and on perusal of the materials available on records, vide judgment & order dated 15.05.2013, in Sessions Case No. 93/2009, convicted the accused/appellant under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced her, as aforesaid. 6. On being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid impugned judgment dated 15.05.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Sessions Case No. 93/2009, under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, the present appeal has been preferred by the accused/appellant. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. At this stage, the evidence in the case may be discussed. 8. As regards the cause of death, PW-7 Dr. R. Chaliha, who performed the post-mortem examination upon the deceased opined the cause of death to be Page No.# 4/10 due to coma as a result of the injuries on the head which were ante-mortem and caused by blunt force impact and homicidal in nature. 9. In the instant case, P.W. 1, Sri Motilal Goala, father of the deceased as well as informant has stated his son Jiten used to reside with his wife Rekha. He came to know about the occurrence after three days that his son was beaten by his father in law, Rajesh. He went to the house of Rajesh who informed him that Jiten was assaulted. But he could not say the whereabout of the deceased. Feeling foul play, he convened a village meeting where the accused persons did not appear. Thereafter he went to police station. His daughter in law also arrived at the Police Station in the evening where villagers informed that they saw a dead body in the latrine ditch of Suren Modi. He along with the villagers guarded the dead body for that night and in the next morning police visited the place of occurrence, recovered the dead body of Jiten and prepared inquest report, (Ext.1). He lodged an FIR (Ext. 2) wherein Ext. 2(1) is his signature. Dead body of the deceased was found after 10/11 days of the occurrence. During his cross-examination he has admitted that he did not notice any quarrel between the deceased and his father-in-law Rajesh. 10. P.W. 2, Smti. Shanti Sing Rajput who is a member of Balimara Gaon Panchayat has stated that the deceased was living in the house of his father-in- law Rajesh. Prior to 3 days of occurrence she heard cry like saying (মৰল) in the house of father in law of the deceased. Thereafter the deceased was found missing. This witness went to house of accused to ask them to produce Jiten, she was told that as deceased was assaulted he fled away. After eleven days of occurrence getting foul smell, this witness went near a ditch of latrine in the boundary of accused persons and found a dead body there. She immediately Page No.# 5/10 went to police station. Police arrived at the place of occurrence and as it was dark, police told them to guard the place and visited next day morning. This witness has stated that she heard hue and cry in the house of accused persons and thereafter the deceased was found missing. During cross-examination this witness has stated that at the time of occurrence there were other neighboring two houses. On the day of occurrence she did not come out of her house hearing halla. The kacha latrine in which the dead body of deceased was found was commonly used by several householders. On the day of occurrence, the deceased was under the influence of alcohol. She has also stated that finding the door of the accused under lock and key in the morning as well as in the noon she suspected that they fled away. She could not say whether accused persons made any effort to search the deceased Jiten. 11. P.W. 3, Sri Banshilal Sahu, who happens to be the Assistant Secretary of Assam Sah Majdoor Sangha has deposed that at the time of occurrence he was Councilor of Duliajan Gaon Panchayat. He was informed by a villager that dead body of Jiten was found. He went to the house of Jiten. Before his arrival at the house of Jiten, Police and Magistrate also arrived there and the dead body of Jiten was recovered from a latrine ditch. Police prepared inquest report Ext. 1 and took his signature Ext. (1). He came to know from villagers that Jiten was killed by his wife and his father-in-law. During his cross-examination he has stated that he did not have any personal knowledge about the occurrence. 12. P.W.4, Sri Ramu Singh Rajput has stated that at the time of occurrence the deceased was residing in the house of Rajesh Goala. On the day of occurrence Jiten was coming from rice Mill taking rice in his cycle and proceeding to the house of his father-in-law. As his cycle was loaded with rice he was getting Page No.# 6/10 trouble in pushing cycle. This witness helped him in pushing his bicycle and he also reached the house of the accused along with Jiten. As soon as they arrived, accused persons rebuked Jiten for his delay and Rekha tried to asault Jiten with a broken brick. On being intervened by the P.W.4, Rajesh Goala came there with a lathi in his hand and gave two blows on the leg of Jiten and from that very day this witness did not see Jiten again in the village. After eleven days of occurrence, the dead body of Jiten was recovered near the latrine of accused. During cross-examination this witness has stated that he only saw the accused Rajesh assaulting Jiten on his leg. Thereafter, Suren Modi prevented the accused from assaulting Jiten and from that very day Jiten was missing. Suren Modi has since expired. This witness stated in cross-examination that he does not know how Jiten died. 13. Neighbour of accused P.W. 5, Sri Raju Modi, a day labour, has stated that Jiten used to reside at the house of Rekha and at the time of occurrence, in the evening there was quarrel between Jiten and accused Rajesh Goala. He went to the house of accused and intercepted them from quarreling. After three days the relative of Jiten went to the house of accused Rajesh Goala to enquire about Jiten. Then accused Rajesh and Rekha fled away by locking their house. Two days after the occurrence the dead body of Jiten was found from a latrine. During cross-examination, he has pleaded ignorance as to who kept the dead body of Jiten in the latrine pit. 14. The learned trial court held it to have been established that the deceased used to reside with the accused/appellant wife and his father-in-law and also that prior to the occurrence, the deceased was assaulted by his father-in-law. The accused/appellant and the present accused being the inhabitant of the Page No.# 7/10 same house knew about the incident. 15. The learned trial court laid emphasis on the following circumstances – (i) to bring home the guilt of the accused that the absconding accused Rajesh i.e father-in-law of the deceased had assaulted the deceased 3(three) days prior to the deceased going missing and although the present accused/appellant was present, she did not raise any protest and rather tried to assault the deceased. Immediately after the deceased went missing, the appellant and her father abscond from their house. (ii) The accused and her father did not turn up at the village meeting called by the father of the deceased. (iii) Even after the deceased went missing, the appellant wife remains indifferent and did not search for him or lodged complaint with the police. (iv) The body of the deceased was recovered from the backside of the house of the accused and one Suren Modi but the accused could not offer any explanation for such recovery as to how the deceased was recovered from the boundary of their house. (v) The accused could not give any plausible answer in her statements under Section 313 Cr.PC. 16. The learned trial court was of the opinion that the above circumstances are consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused/appellant. Page No.# 8/10 However, the same were not found to be sufficient to establish that the appellant had caused the death of the deceased. Despite that, the same circumstances were found to be sufficient to be establish that the accused/appellant had concealed the body of the deceased in a drain lying somewhere in the boundary between her house and that of one Suren Modi. 17. There is no evidence whatsoever that the accused/appellant had any role to play in placing the body of the deceased at the drain lying in the boundary of her house which was accessible to other people also as per the evidence on record. If the learned trial court did not find the circumstances appearing against the accused to be sufficient to return the finding of guilt with regard to commission of homicide, the said circumstances would not be sufficient to hold the accused guilty of concealing the body of the deceased. Had there been any other evidence, direct or otherwise, capable of leading to an inference that the accused/appellant had indeed concealed the body, then perhaps some of the circumstances outlined above may have been used to corroborate such primary evidence, which is absent in the instant case. 18. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent submitted that the theory of last seen together may be applied in the instant case in as much as it is discernible from the evidence that the appellant was the last person with whom the deceased was seen. However, I do not find any force in such contention, in as much as, in addition to the present appellant, her father who absconded was also present at that time prior to the deceased going missing and there is evidence that it was the father of the accused who had assaulted the deceased. Therefore, it is quite possible that rather than the present accused/appellant, her father could have been the culprit. In a case Page No.# 9/10 based on circumstantial evidence, the question of motive also assumes significance but in the instant case, no such motive as to why the accused/appellant would seek to harm her husband and father of her two children is forthcoming. 19. To put it simply, if it is not established that the accused/appellant killed the deceased, there is no plausible reason as to why she would seek to conceal the body. The scenario may be envisaged where the father of the accused/appellant killed the deceased and threw the body in the drain which fact was known to the accused/appellant, who choose to suppress such fact in order to protect her father. But in the absence of any evidence, the same remains in the realm of conjecture. 20. In other words, the hypothesis of her innocence is no less likely than the hypothesis of her guilt. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116, the circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused must form a chain so complete that the hypothesis of guilt of the accused must not be explainable by any other hypothesis. The evidence in the present case clearly falls far short of that standard. 21. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that impugned judgment and sentence is unsustainable and accordingly, the same is set aside. 22. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith. 23. Send back the case record of the Trial Court. Page No.# 10/10 24. In terms of above, this criminal appeal stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant