Page No.# 1/10 GAHC040010892024 2026:GAU-AP:630-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRL.A(J)/4/2024 Chow Bitupon Chowpoo Son of Chow Lokeshwar Chowpoo, resident of Village Manhofai, PO and PS Namsia, District Namsai, Arunachal Pradesh and presently lodging at District jail Tezu, Lohit District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG Advocates for the appellant : Ms. S. V. Darang, legal aid counsel Advocate for the respondent : Ms. Topi Jini, Addl. P.P., Arunachal Pradesh 1. Date on which judgment is reserved: 26.05.2026 2. Date of pronouncement of judgment: 25.06.2026 3. Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? NO 4. Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? YES JUDGMENT & ORDER(CAV) (By Budi Habung, J.) Heard Ms. S. V. Darang, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Ms. Topi Jini, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. The present Jail Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction Page No.# 2/10 dated 20.12.2023 and order of sentence dated 21.12.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tezu, in Sessions Case No. 10(NMS)/2020 arising out of Namsai P.S. Case No.46/2019 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 3,000/- with default stipulation. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 06.08.2019, a written First Information Report(FIR) was lodged before the Officer in-Charge, Namsai Police Station by the PW-2 who is the brother of the deceased informing that on 06.08.2019, at around 0800 hours, the accused/appellant who had married his sister, came to his house at Lathoa and informed that his sister was found dead and lying in Deobeel village. Accordingly, he along with PW-3 and PW-5 went to the spot and found the dead body of the deceased lying on ground, covered with a blanket. The PW-2 has seen injuries on the head and he had also seen blood over the bed and the mosquito net. In the said First Information Report (FIR), he expressed a strong suspicion that the murder might have been committed by the accused. 4. On the basis of the said First Information Report (FIR), Namsai P.S. Case No. 46/2019 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was registered and investigation was taken-up. 5. During investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence and seized certain articles including the weapon of offence i.e. bamboo stick. Subsequently, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the present appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A charge was then framed against the accused under the said section. Page No.# 3/10 6. In order to bring home the charge against the accused person, the prosecution examined altogether 8(eight) prosecution witnesses. 7. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court is wholly unsustainable in law and on fact. It is contended that except for the alleged extra judicial confessional statement stated to have given before the police under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, there is no legally admissible evidence connecting the appellant with the commission of the offence. 8. It is further submitted that the alleged weapon of offence i.e. the bamboo stick and the mosquito net allegedly containing blood stain was never sent for forensic analysis. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the entire prosecution case rests upon weak circumstantial evidence and incomplete chain of circumstances. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that an extra judicial confessional statement before the police under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is not substantive evidence by itself at all and in the absence of independent corroboration, conviction solely based on such evidence, is unsafe. 10. Per contra, learned Addl. P. P., Arunachal Pradesh, submits that the extra- confessional statement under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, given by the accused before the police in the Namsai Police Station in the presence of the other competent witnesses, which is detail in nature and Page No.# 4/10 contained fact which could only be within the knowledge of the accused person. It is also submitted that the medical evidence corroborates the manner of assault described in the extra judicial confessional statement given by the accused before the police under 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and therefore, the learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellant. 11. In the light of the rival submissions and materials available on record, the following points arise for determination of this Court: (i). whether the extra judicial confessional statement given by the accused before the police under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are voluntary and made in the presence of any independent witnesses, reliable and sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant? (ii). whether the circumstantial evidence brought on record, forms a complete chain pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the appellant? (iii). whether the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court can be sustained in law? 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. The prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence of the incident. 14. The evidence of PW-7/Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination, recorded the following injuries: Page No.# 5/10 i. A cut mark on left frontal region 1 inch above outer canthus. ii. Sharp cut wound of 6cm x 2cm lying laterally. iii. Multiple bruises on body parts in front, backside both upper limbs and both legs left breast was blackish in colour due to bruises of 7cm X 6cm. iv. Scalp congested at occipital region. v. Skull fracture at occipital parietal joining region(R). vi. Bruises & scalp occipital-parietal vii. Subdural injury of brain vessel. ‘C’ b clot a.m. & p.m. viii.Spinal cord intact. ix. Congested blacken due to bruises intact ribs & cartilage. x. Congested contain blood clots A.M. & P.M. within both chambers. xi. Mucous membrane congested within mucosal fluid. xii. Mucous fluid & gaseous ‘c’ foul-smelling. xiii.More detailed description of injury or disease:- Sharp cut injury wound on left frontal and fracture on the left occipital parietal region of skull and several/multiple lacerating mark(blunt weapon marks) on frontal chest back of body, breast and limbs. xiv.Opinion of Surgeon as to cause of death :- “Death was due to the effects of the injuries noted above ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.” 15. Thus, the evidence of PW-7/Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination, establishes that the deceased died a homicidal death on account of severe head injuries. To that extent, the prosecution has successfully proved that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. However, the crucial question in the present case, is whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant who caused those injuries. Page No.# 6/10 16. The alleged admission of guilt/extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before the Investigating Officer is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon. Admittedly, no confessional statement was recorded before a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Investigating Officer did not take any steps to forward the accused before the Magistrate for recording his confessional statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 17. The prosecution has also failed to establish any motive. None of the prosecution witnesses has stated or gave evidence about any quarrel or dispute between the appellant and the deceased wife immediately preceding the occurrence. Further, no neighbour or independent witnesses were examined in that regard. 18. Though the weapon of offence i.e. bamboo stick was seized during investigation, the same was not subjected to any forensic examination. Blood sample allegedly found at the place of occurrence, more particularly, the mosquito net, were also not collected and sent for scientific analysis. Thus, no forensic examination report connecting the appellant with the crime, has been established. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the presence of blood stains on the weapon of offence; matching of blood group, forensic examination connecting the weapon of offence with the crime. Thus, the alleged weapon of offence remains an uncorroborated circumstance. 19. Furthermore, the First Information Report(FIR) itself mentioned the blood stain on the bed and the mosquito net. However, blood samples were not collected; no serological examination was conducted; and no forensic report was produced. Such omission assumes significance when the entire case rests Page No.# 7/10 upon the circumstantial evidence. 20. Apart from that, the conduct of the accused is also not incriminating in nature. The evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 shows that it was the accused himself who informed others regarding the death of his wife and requested them to accompany him to the place of occurrence. Such conduct is not necessarily inconsistent with innocence and cannot by itself constitute proof of guilt. 21. PW-3 merely stated that the accused “might have killed” the deceased and that, he was a man of bad character. Such statements are purely opinion evidence and are not proof of the fact in issue. Similarly, the suspicion expressed by PW-2 cannot take the place of legal proof. 22. There is also no evidence of last seen circumstances in the present case. None of the prosecution witness stated that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the appellant immediately before her death. 23. On the facts as narrated, the conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, appears unsustainable in law. The entire prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. There is no eye- witness to the incident. The alleged extra-judicial confession before the investigating officer, is inadmissible under Section 25 and 20 of the Indian Evidence Act, except to the limited extent permissible under Section 27, which is not the case in the instant case. The learned Sessions Judge appears to have relied substantially upon suspicion and inadmissible material rather than legally proved circumstances forming a complete chain. Page No.# 8/10 24. The law relating to circumstantial evidence is well settled. The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances which points only towards the guilt of the accused and excludes every other hypothesis consistent with innocence of the accused. The settled principles governing conviction on circumstantial evidence are laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1952 SC 343 which was relied in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622. (i). The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must be fully established; (ii). The fact so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (iii). The circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (iv). They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved; and (v). There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the 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. 25. In the present case, the chain of circumstances is incomplete and several vital links are missing. In fact, there is no chain of circumstances at all in the present case as there is absolutely no evidence linking the death of the deceased with the accused/ appellant. On examination of the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses of the present case, we found the following deficiencies: Page No.# 9/10 (i). Admittedly, none of the prosecution witness has witnessed the occurrence of the incident leading to the death of the deceased. (ii). None of the witnesses have stated that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused immediately before the occurrence or even on the previous day. (iii). No motive whatsoever has been established. The informant who is the brother of deceased only expressed the suspicion against the accused for killing his sister by the accused, however, he has neither expressed any ground for his suspicion, nor, had ever stated anything against the character of the accused appellant except for the PW-3 who stated that the accused/appellant was a man of bad character without substantiating any evidence. 26. Further, the Investigating Officer and the prosecution have failed to establish any motive. None of the witnesses have stated that there was any quarrel, dispute or enmity between the appellant and the deceased wife immediately before the incident. 27. Suspicion, howsoever, strong cannot take the place of proof. The circumstances proved by the prosecution merely create suspicion but do not establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 28. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Page No.# 10/10 29. The judgment of conviction dated 20.12.2023 and order of sentence dated 21.12.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Namsai, in Sessions Case No. 10(NMS)2020, are set aside. 30. The appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by extending him the benefit of doubt. 31. The appellant shall be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other case. 32. The fine, if deposited, shall be refunded. 33. Send back the record of the learned trial Court forthwith. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant