Page No.# 1/16 GAHC010081682024 2026:GAU-AS:13665-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.A./190/2024 KAMAL UDDIN MAZUMDAR AND 6 ORS S/O LATE ABDUL SOID MAZUMDAR, VILL.- LAKHINAGAR PART- I, P.S.- HAILAKANDI, DIST.- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN- 788164. 2: AYNUL HAQUE LASKAR S/O ABDUL JALIL LASKAR VILL.- LAKHINAGAR PART- I P.S.- HAILAKANDI DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788164. 3: FAKRUL ISLAM LASKAR S/O MUJOMIL ALI LASKAR VILL.- LAKHINAGAR PART- I P.S.- HAILAKANDI DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788164. 4: ANWAR HUSSAIN LASKAR S/O MUJOMMIL ALI LASKAR VILL.- LAKHINAGAR PART- I P.S.- HAILAKANDI DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788164. 5: NIZAM UDDIN MAZUMDER S/O LATE ABDUL SOID MAZUMDAR Page No.# 2/16 VILL.- LAKHINAGAR PART- I P.S.- HAILAKANDI DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788164. 6: ASAB UDDIN MAZUMDER S/O LATE ABDUL SOID MAZUMDAR VILL.- LAKHINAGAR PART- I P.S.- HAILAKANDI DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788164. 7: ANAM UDDIN MAZUMDER S/O LATE ABDUL SOID MAZUMDAR VILL.- LAKHINAGAR PART- I P.S.- HAILAKANDI DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788164 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. 2:JUBEDA BIBI MAZUMDER S/O LATE ABDUL SOID MAZUMDAR VILL.- LAKHINAGAR PART- I P.S.- HAILAKANDI DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788164 Advocate for the appellants : Mr. I.U. Choudhury Advocate for the respondents : Ms. B. Bhuyan, Addl. P.P. Mr. A. Khan (r-2) Page No.# 3/16 :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA Date on which judgment is reserved : 08.09.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 16.09.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : No. operative part of the judgment ? Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced? JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) (M. Zothankhuma, J) Heard Mr. I. U. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel and Addl. PP for the State as well as Mr. A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 (informant). 2. This appeal is against the impugned judgment dated 22.02.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Sessions Case No. 10/2018, by which the 7 appellants have been convicted under Section 148 IPC and Sections 302/149 IPC. They have accordingly been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years under Section 148 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Sections 302/149 IPC with a fine of Rs.20,000/- each, in default, rigorous imprisonment for another one year. 3. The facts in brief is that an FIR dated 11.08.2017 was submitted to the Page No.# 4/16 Officer-in-Charge of Hailakandi Police Station on 09.08.2017 by the informant (Prosecution Witness-4). The FIR stated that the appellants had been threatening to kill her husband for the past few days and at around 7.30 p.m. on 08.08.2017, while her husband was returning from his shop, the 7 appellants assaulted him before he could reach the house, with sharp weapons, such as dao, bhojali, sword, etc. They caused grievous injuries on his neck, head and other parts of his body. Her son (PW-6) and sister-in-law (PW-5) had also come to the place of occurrence and seen the assailants with the help of a torch-light. They had also seen the appellants/assailants assaulting her husband. When the appellants saw them, they covered their faces and fled. The informant’s husband died, as a result of the assault. 4. Pursuant to the FIR, Hailakandi PS Case No.476/2017 under Sections 147/148/149/341/326/302 IPC was registered. After the appellants were arrested and investigation was completed by the Investigative Officer (PW-15), he submitted the charge sheet against the appellants under Sections 147/148/149/341/326/302 IPC. 5. The learned Trial Court thereafter framed three charges against the appellants under Sections 148 IPC, 341/149 IPC and 302/149 IPC, to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The learned Trial Court thereafter examined 16 Prosecution Witnesses and one Defence Witness. After examining the appellants under Section 313 Cr.PC, the learned Trial Court came to a finding that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the appellants under Sections 341/149 IPC. It however held Page No.# 5/16 that the prosecution had been able to prove the common object of the appellants in killing the deceased and accordingly convicted them under Section 148 IPC and under Sections 302/149 IPC. 7. The appellants were accordingly sentenced by the learned Trial Court. The appellants have thus filed the present appeal. 8. The appellants’ counsel submits that as the eye-witnesses to the incident, that is pw Nos. 4 5 and 6, are related to the deceased, they are interested witnesses. He submits that pw-4 is the wife of the deceased and pw-5 is the sister-in-law of the deceased, while pw-6 is the son of the deceased. He accordingly submits that because they are near relations, the identification and testimonies of the appellants by pw Nos. 4 to 6 is doubtful. The appellant’s counsel submits that it was doubtful that PW Nos. 4 to 6 could have seen the occurrence in the dark with the help of a torch light. He also submits that there was an alleged land dispute, as per the evidence of PW-15 and that enmity may also explain the filing of a false case against the appellant. Further, the incriminating evidence was not put to the appellant, during his examination under Section 313 Cr.PC, thereby depriving him of an opportunity to explain the same. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that there is a 26 hour & 15 minutes delay in filing the FIR, which creates a doubt as to the credibility of the FIR, inasmuch as, the occurrence allegedly took place at about 7.30 p.m. on 08.08.2017, whereas the written FIR was received at the police station at 9.45 p.m. on 09.08.2017. Further, there was a delay in producing the Page No.# 6/16 FIR before the Magistrate, which was done on 11.08.2017. He also submits that there was no recovery of weapons by the police and there are discrepancies in the evidence of the Prosecution Witnesses. While the evidence of pw-2 speaks of seeing only 4 assailants running away from the place of occurrence, the testimonies of the other witnesses speak of 7 assailants (appellants), who were running away. He also submits that there was a land dispute between the parties. He submits that as the testimonies of the interested/related witnesses were to be considered, the same has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Thus, it cannot be said that the prosecution had been able to prove the guilt of the appellants, in the killing of the deceased beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, the impugned judgment should be set aside. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsels for the respondents submit that the motive for the crime is clearly made out, as had been submitted by the counsel for the appellant, wherein he said that there was a land dispute between the deceased and the appellants. Further, the evidence of a related witness cannot be discarded, only because they are related to the deceased. They further submit that the evidence of the doctor clearly proved that the deceased had died due to the assault on his body with weapons and that the testimonies of the eye-witnesses were corroborated by the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3, who had seen the appellants running away from the place of occurrence. They accordingly submit that the impugned judgment should not be interfered with, as the evidences of the related eye-witnesses were corroborated. 11. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 12. As can be seen from the evidence, PW nos. 4 to 6 are the eyewitnesses, Page No.# 7/16 who saw the 7 appellants assaulting the deceased with weapons and seen them running away on the night of 08.08.2017. Thereafter, PW nos.1, 2 & 3 had also seen the appellants going away from the scene of the crime with weapons, though they did not see the actual assault made by the appellants on the deceased. 13. The evidence of PW-7 is that he had heard that the deceased had died, though he did not know how he had died. 14. The evidence of PW-8 is to the effect that he had gone to the place of occurrence when he heard a hue and cry, where he was met by PW-6, who told him his father had been killed by the appellants. On seeing the deceased, he lost consciousness. 15. The evidence of PW-9 is to the effect that he wrote the FIR as dictated to him by the informant about the (PW-4). 16. The evidence of PW-10 is that he had heard that his brother had been killed on his wife receiving a phone call and at the place of occurrence, PW-6 informed him that the appellants had killed his brother. 17. The evidence of PW-11, 12 and 13 is that they came to learn of the murder of the deceased from others. Page No.# 8/16 18. The evidence of PW-14, who is the Doctor who conducted post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased on 09.08.2017 is to the effect that the whole body was full of blood and blood clots which was coming out from the neck and scalp. He found the following injuries on the body of the deceased which are the follows : “(1) One incised wound on front side of neck at the region of thyroid cartilage of size 5cm x 4cm x 4cm with cutting of bronchus, both sided jaguler vains, muscles, nurves, carotid artery with massive haemorrhage in that area. (2) One incised wound on occipital region of size 10 cm x 5cm x 5cm, direction- transverse with cutting of occipital bone. (3) One incised wound on back of neck of size 9cm x 5cm x 5cm, direction- transverse with cutting of spinal process of C 4 vertebra with cutting of neck muscles, major vassals at that region with massive haemorrhage on that area. Thorax - At larynx region, there is cutting of bronchus just beneath the injury on front of the neck as described earlier. Heart- almost empty due to massive bleeding from different injury site as described earlier. Abdomen- Abdomen is distended and in stomach semi digested food materials found, which having no abnormal smell. Other organs were found congested. Cranium and spine - Incised wound on scalp and neck as described earlier. Fissured fracture in occipital bone of length 8cm, direction- transverse. Presence of extra dural, sub dural haemorrhage of size 10cm x 10cm x 5cm in the occipital region just beneath the fracture as described Page No.# 9/16 earlier. Presence of massive haemorrhage inside the brain with evidence of midline sift and pressure effect on brain vital center. Multiple area of intra cerebral haemorrhage in occipital region just beneath the injury site as described earlier. All the findings described above are ante mortem in nature. Incised wound on the neck- cutting of major vassals in the neck- irreversible haemorrhagic shock- cardio respiratory failure- death. Incised wound in neck and occipital bone of brain- fracture of scalp- grievous head injury- haemorrhage inside the brain- irreversible haemorrhagic shock- death. From the site, size, shape of different injuries on the body, it appears that these injuries are caused by sharp, hard, heavy, forceful object. In my opinion, the cause of death is due to grievous head injury and grievous neck injury by sharp, hard, heavy and forceful object.” 19. The evidence of PW-15 is to the effect that on 08.08.2017 at about 8.42 p.m the Officer-in-Charge of the Hailakandi P.S informed him over phone that one person had been murdered at village Lakhirbond Pt-1. On entering the information in the General Diary vide GD Entry No.92 dated 08.08.2017, he went to the place of occurrence and found the dead body covered with sharp cut injuries. He prepared the rough sketch-map of the place and the occurrence and recorded the statements of witnesses. On 09.08.2017 inquest was conducted over the dead body by the Executive Magistrate and thereafter post- mortem was conducted by a Doctor. On 09.08.2017 at about 9.45 pm the OC of Page No.# 10/16 the Hailakandi P.S received a written FIR and accordingly Hailakandi P.S Case No.476/2017 was registered. PW 15 was made the Investigating Officer and on completing the investigation, he filed a charge-sheet against the appellants on having found a prima facie case against them under Section 147/148/149/341/326/302 IPC. 20. The evidence of PW-16 is to the effect that that on 09.08.2017 he was posted as SDM, Katlicherra and he conducted the inquest examination on the body of the deceased, which showed cut marks all over his body caused by sharpness. 21. The evidence of DW-1 is to the effect that on 08.08.02017 at about 7.30 p.m, appellant no.1 along with his son offered Namaz at the Masjid. In his cross-examination DW 1 denied the suggestion that he was giving a false testimony. 22. The examination of the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C is to the effect that they were innocent and that the allegations against them were false and due to a previous grudge held against them. 23. In the case of Bishan Singh, Gurdial Singh, Hardial vs The State Of Punjab, reported in (1974) 3 SCC 288, the Supreme Court held that normally a close relative of the deceased would be most reluctant to spare the real assailants and falsely mention the names of other persons as those responsible Page No.# 11/16 for causing injuries to the deceased. 24. In the case of Md. Jabbar Ali vs. State of Assam, reported in AIR 2022 SC 5420, the Supreme Court held that the evidence given by a related or interested witness is entirely admissible. However, their testimonies must be evaluated using discerning and cautious scrutiny. A close relationship to the victim does not automatically mean a witness is biased or unreliable. Thus, from the decisions of the Supreme Court mentioned above, it is clear that the evidence of a close relative is admissible. However, the only requirement is to ensure that their testimonies are put to stricter proof, with greater care and circumspection. 25. In the case of Barban Shankar Daphal & Others vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 137, the Supreme Court held in paragraph nos. 28 and 29, states as follows : “28. In criminal cases, the credibility of witnesses, particularly those who are close relatives of the victim, is often scrutinized. However, being a relative does not automatically render a witness "interested" or biased. The term "interested" refers to witnesses who have a personal stake in the outcome, such as a desire for revenge or to falsely implicate the accused due to enmity or personal gain. A "related" witness, on the other hand, is someone who may be naturally present at the scene of the crime, and their testimony should not be dismissed simply because of their relationship to the victim. Courts must assess the reliability, consistency, and coherence of their statements rather than labelling them as Page No.# 12/16 untrustworthy. 29. The distinction between "interested" and "related" witnesses has been clarified in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab,3 where this Court emphasized that a close relative is usually the last person to falsely implicate an innocent person. Therefore, in evaluating the evidence of a related witness, the court should focus on the consistency and credibility of their testimony. This approach ensures that the evidence is not discarded merely due to familial ties, but is instead assessed based on its inherent reliability and consistency with other evidence in the case. This position has been reiterated by this Court in: i. Md. Rojali Ali and Ors v. The State of Assam Ministry of Home Affairs through secretary, reported in (2019 19 SCC 567 ii. Ganapathi v. State of T.N., reported in (2018) 5 SCC 549 iii. Jayabalan v. Union Territory of Pondicherry, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 199” 26. In the case of Esakkimuthu vs. State, represented by the Inspector of Police, reported in 2025 0 INSC 880, the Supreme Court has held that when witnesses are related/ interested, their testimonies have to be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection. Their evidence has to be met with a stricter standard of proof and deserve to be scrutinized in order to rule out any embellishment. 27. In the present case, the evidence of the PW nos.4, 5, and 6 is to the effect that they had seen the appellants assaulting the deceased with weapons. Further, PW nos.1, 2 and 3 had seen the appellants running away from the Page No.# 13/16 place of occurrence. PW-2 stated in his evidence that he had seen 4 out of the 7 appellants leaving the place of occurrence while being armed with weapons such as, dao, bhojali, sword, etc. PW 2 is not a related witness to the deceased. However, PW-1 stated that he saw all the 7 appellants running away from the place of occurrence with weapons such as dao, lathi. bolchira etc. PW-3, who is also a related witness had seen 4 out of the 7 appellants running away with weapons from the place of occurrence. As stated earlier, PW nos.4, 5 and 6 were eyewitnesses to all the 7 appellants assaulting the deceased with weapons. On considering the evidence of PW nos.1 to 6, we are satisfied with the truthfulness of the testimonies of the PW nos.1 to 6. As such, we find that their evidence is admissible and can be the basis for convicting the appellants under Section 302 IPC/ 149 and 148 IPC. 28. It is settled law that direct ocular evidence, if found natural, cogent and trustworthy prevails over all other kinds of evidence. Further, has held by the Supreme Court in the case of Balku v. State of Odisha, reported in 2026 INSC 852, the Court can act on the testimony of a single eyewitness to the murder, provided the testimony is wholly reliable. In the present case not only are there three eyewitnesses to the assault made on the deceased by the appellants, there are three further eyewitnesses to the appellants running away from the place of occurrence with weapons. 29. One of the submissions of the appellants’ council is that as there was a land dispute between the parties, the present case was a fabricated case. In this respect, we would have to understand that enmity is a double-edged sword. Page No.# 14/16 It can be a motive or a reason to falsely implicate the other side on one hand and on the other hand, it could be the reason for the attack on the deceased. This is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ruli Ram & Another vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2002) 7 SCC 691, wherein it held that enmity is a double-edged sword. While it can be the basis for a false implication, it can also be a basis for the crime. When a plea of false implication is advanced by the accused, foundation for the same has to be established. This decision has also been referred to in subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court, such as in Prahlad vs. State of MP, reported in (2024) 14 SCC 203. Further, in the case of Nandu Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh), reported in (2022) 19 SCC 301, motive assumes great significance in a case based on circumstantial evidence. In the present case, the appellants have not established the foundation that there is enmity between the parties due to a land dispute. Further, the question of motive is of little significance, keeping in view that there are eyewitnesses to the crime in question. 30. With regard to the stand taken by the appellants that there is a delay in filing the FIR by about 26 hours, we should remember that the incident occurred at about 7.30 p.m on 08.08.2027 and the FIR was submitted at 9.45 p.m, the next day. As can be seen from the evidence, the incident took place in a village, while the Police Station is located in Hailakandi, which is the District Capital. Due to the above fact, the informant could/would not have gone at night to register an FIR and the registration of the FIR on the next day is quite understandable. Page No.# 15/16 31. In the case of Apren Joseph alias Current Kunjukunju and Ors. Vs. The State of Kerala, reported in (1973) 3 SCC 114, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that an FIR is very useful, if recorded before there is time and opportunity to embellish it, or before the informant’s memory fades. Undue or unreasonable delay in lodging the FIR, therefore, may give rise to a suspicion, which puts the Court on guard to look for the possible motive and consider its effect on the trustworthiness or otherwise of the Prosecution case. Thus, in terms of the above judgment, FIR should normally be lodged at the earliest possible opportunity. However, some laxity is provided and accepted in filing delayed FIRs, provided there is some explanation for the same. 32. In the present case, when we find that the incident had occurred on the night of 08.08.2017 and the FIR had been filed on the next day, we do not find that there had been any attempt to embellish the contents of the FIR. There is no question put to the informant or to the other Prosecution witnesses by the appellants during cross-examination before the Trial Court, as to why there had been a delay in filing the FIR after 15 hours of the incident. There is also no suggestion put to witnesses that there was embellishment made to the Prosecution case. The evidence of the informant (PW-4) is to the effect that her husband's dead body had been taken by the Police on the night of the incident from the village and though the FIR had not been filed on the night of the incident due to various reasons, as villagers cannot be expected to walk in the middle of the night to the district capital, we do not find any reason to doubt the veracity of the FIR. We also do not find that there was any delay in producing the FIR before the learned Magistrate. Page No.# 16/16 33. On considering all the evidence of DW-1, we are of the view that the evidence of DW-1 cannot be accepted, insofar as he is trying to make out a case that appellant no.1 was with him at the time of the incident. This is clear from the evidence of PW-1, 3, 4 5 & 6. 34. In view of the reasons stated above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 22.02.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Sessions Case No. 10/2018. 35. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 36. Send back the TCR. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant Kuntal Datta Digitally signed by Kuntal Datta Date: 2026.09.16 10:44:12 +05'30'