heading of judgment in sessions case :: in the court of

HEADING OF JUDGMENT IN SESSIONS CASE

:: IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE :::::::::::::::::::::NALBARI ::

Present: Smti S. Bhuyan, AJSSessions Judge,

Nalbari.

Sessions Case No. 7 of 2012

u/s- 302/201 IPC

STATE

Versus

Charitra Haloi

S/o- Late Barihana Haloi

Vill- Barkhetri Banekuchi

P.S. & District-Nalbari

.......................... Accused person

(Committed by Ld. CJM, Nalbari in GR case No- 870/10 u/s-

120(B)/302/201/34 IPC)

Advocate appeared:-

For the state : Mr. D. Barman, learned Public Prosecutor.

For the accused : Mr. A. Mazid, learned advocate.

Date of institution of the case : 07/09/10

Date of commitment : 30/12/11

Date of Framing charge : 30/01/12

Date of prosecution evidence : 26/09/12, 25/04/13, 04/09/13, 23/07/14, 11/06/15, 21/06/16 22/02/18

Statement of accused recorded on : 11/04/19, 03/06/19

Date of Argument : 21/06/19, 23/07/19

Judgment delivered : 06/08/19

Sentence Hearing : 13/08/19

Sentence Pronounced : 13/08/19

Sessions Case No. 7/12 1 of 45

JUDGMENT

Prosecution Case

1. Prosecution case in nutshell as revealed from the material on

record is that on 31/08/10 Lankeswar Talukdar went to village Sandha

for rehearsal of cultural program and PW-1, informant came to know

that on 02/09/10 Lankeswar Talukdar has return from rehearsal to his

own house situated at village Banekuchi but he did not reach home

and there was no connection between informant and deceased

Lankeswar Talukdar. So from 03/09/10, they made search for

Lankeswar but could not trace out him. Therefore on 07/09/10, they

went to the house of accused Charitra Haloi as there is a dispute

started between Charitra and Lankeswar over transaction of money. On

asking Charitra Haloi and his wife Pramila Haloi about Lankeswar they

found difference in statement of Charitra and Pramila Haloi that lead

suspicion on Charitra Haloi, his wife Pramila Haloi and his family

members and they perhaps by making conspiracy committed murder

of Lankeswar and then hiding the dead body in some unknown place so

family member of Lankeswar inform the matter of missing of

Lankeswar and their suspicion on accused Lankeswar to the village

headman and VDP personnel and on questioning of accused Charitra

Haloi about the Lankeshwar by village headman with VDP personel on

07-09-10, he make statement before them that he had killed

Lankeswar and cut his body into pieces and threw the same. Police was

informed by village headman, police arrived took custody of the

accused and on next day early morning, police again came with

accused and accused Charitra took police personnel to the place where

he buried the dead body of Lankeswar at three places after cutting into

pieces and produced the dao used in committing murder and cutting of

the deceased. Sri Bhaben Talukdar, elder brother of the deceased

Lankeswar lodged written ejahar in connection with the case before OC

Nalbari police station on 07/09/10.

Investigation


2. Officer in charge, Nalbari police station on receipt of ejahar

registered Nalbari PS Case no.428/10. SI Pulen Das was entrusted with

the charge of investigation. During investigation IO visited the place of

occurrence along with circle officer and VDP members went to the

house of accused Charitra Haloi and on interrogation accused

confessed before them that he had committed murder of deceased

Lankeswar Talukdar and buried the dead body in their compound and

as led and shown by accused IO recovered the cut pieces of dead body

from different places buried beneath the earth. He prepared the sketch

map of the different place of recovery of the mutilated pieces of dead

body and also drawn the sketch map of the place of occurrences. He

recorded the leading to discovery statement of the accused. Inquest

was done by Executive Magistrate N. Jesmin in presence of witnesses.

The recovered parts of the dead body were sent for post mortem to

GMCH and collected the post mortem report. He arrested the accused

Charitra Haloi and Pramila Haloi and produced them before the

magistrate and during the investigation SI Pulen Das was transferred

so, he hand over case diary to OC Nalbari. Based on the investigation

done by SI Pulen Das, SI Jatindra Nath Saikia submitted the charge

sheet against the accused persons Charitra Haloi and Pramila Haloi u/s-

302/201 IPC.

Committal

3. On receipt of the charge sheet and on appearance of the

accused persons learned CJM, Nalbari, took cognizance and during the

trial accused Pramila Haloi expired and case against her is abated and

learned CJM, Nalbari after furnishing necessary copies to accused

Charitra Haloi committed the case for trial.

Charge

4. After hearing learned counsel for both sides and perusal of

material on record my learned predecessor framed charges u/s-

302/201 IPC against the accused person Charitra Haloi and when


charges are read over and explained to the accused person, he

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Trial

5. In order to prove the prosecution charges against the accused

person prosecution adduced evidence of all together 10 numbers of

witnesses and exhibited 18 numbers of documents. PW-1 Bhaben

Talukdar, PW-2 Dipul Talukdar, PW-3 Dr R Chaliha (MO), PW-4 Harmohan

Barman, PW-5 Babul Talukdar, PW-6 Bhupen Barman, PW-7 Dipak Das,

PW-8 Dhiren Talukdar, PW-9 Samsul Ali, PW-10 SI Pulen Das (I/O). Ext-1

FIR, Ext-2 seizure list, Ext-3 statement of Dipul Talukdar u/s-164 CrPC,

Ext-4 post mortem report, Ext-5 statement of Harmohan Barman u/s-

164 CrPC, Ext-6 statement of Bhupen Barman u/s-164 CrPC, Ext-7,

statement of Dipak Das u/s-164 CrPC, Ext-8, Seizure list, Ext-8 Sketch

Map of the house of accused Charitra (P.O.), Ext-9 Sketch Map of the

place wherefrom the cut hands and legs were recovered, Ext-10, sketch

map where from the cut body were recovered without head, hand and

legs, Ext-11, Sketch map of the place where from head of deceased

recovered, Ext-12, leading to discovery statement of accused for

recovery of head, Ext-13 leading to discovery statement of accused for

recovery of cut hands and legs, Ext-14, leading to discovery statement

for recovery of Trunk, Ext-15 leading to discovery statement made by

accused Charitra, Ext-16(A) to Ext-16(G) inquest report, Ext-17 charge

sheet. All the documents exhibited without any objection from defence

side. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the

accused person recorded by me u/s- 313 Cr.P.C. Accused person plea is

of total denial, however he declined to adduce evidence in support of

his plea of denial.

6. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:

(i) Whether the accused person on 02/09/10 and before the night of

06-09-10 at night at village Banekuchi under Nalbari PS committed the


murder of deceased Lankeswar Talukdar and thereby committed an

offence punishable under section 302 IPC ?

(ii) Whether the accused person on the same date, time and place

make disappearance of evidence, kept confined the dead body of

deceased Lankeswar Talukdar to escape and screening from legal

punishment and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s-201

IPC ?

Argument

7. It has been argued by ld PP that dead body of the deceased

recovered as lead and shown by the accused and leading to discovery

of the dead body during investigation when accused in the custody of

police is sufficient evidence to prove the guilty against the accused. He

further submitted that the weapon of offence used by the accused to

commit the murder of deceased Lankeswar Talukdar is also recovered

as lead and shown by the accused and when PW-2, PW-4 to PW-8 with

gaonburah of the village (since deceased) asked accused Charitra he

confessed his guilty of murdering the deceased Lankeswar and

thereafter gaonburah informed the police, police came and took

accused to police station and they also went to police station and then

again came to accused house with accused in early morning and

thereafter cut pieces of the dead body of the Lankeswar recovered at

the instance of the accused and prior to that none was aware where

dead body of the deceased kept concealed. Learned PP contended that

Ext-13 to Ext-15 statement of the accused pointed that he lead police

to the place where he kept the dead body after cutting the dead body

into pieces and identity of the skeleton is identified to be the deceased

and there remains nothing to disbelief the evidence of prosecution and

minor contradiction that comes during the time of adducing of the

evidence is due to passing of time which is natural and this does not

destabilize the prosecution charge of section 302/201 IPC against the

accused person and prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt

established the charge of section 302/201 IPC.


8. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the accused that

deceased Lankeswar was missing from 31/08/10 and ejahar was lodged

on 07/09/10. In between 31/08/10 and 07/09/10 there is no ejahar

lodged and delay in ejahar is also not mentioned therefore, prosecution

case is fatal. He further submitted that there is no confession till

07/09/10 and no evidence of motive to commit the murder of

Lankeswar by the accused is present and when motive is absent the

prosecution charge of section 302 IPC does not stand because in

criminal trial motive to commit offence must be present. The statement

of PW-2 and PW-4 with regard to leading to discovery is not voluntarily

and identification of the dead body not made as there is no flesh

attached with the body when skeletal body is recovered. Medical

evidence pointed there is only cut pieces not the full dead body

therefore it is not believable that the said cut pieces are skeleton of

deceased Lankeswar. With regard to the confession same must be

voluntarily without any inducement and fear but this principle is not

coming out and therefore leading to discovery, extra judicial confession

as propounded by the prosecution does not established the charge of

prosecution u/s-302/201 IPC against the accused. He further submitted

that the whole prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence,

but prosecution failed to connect complete chain of circumstance

against the accused, the statement of Bhupen Barman recorded u/s-

164 CrPC after much delay on 28/09/10, similarly the statement of

Harmohan, Dipul Talukdar, Dipak Das, Dharmendra Deka recorded after

20 days and not immediately after the incident so there is every

possibility of adding development in their statement and there is no

reason stated why the statement could not be recorded immediately

after the incident.

9. He again submitted that there is nothing present to show the

death of the deceased and connection of seized mobile, weapon of

offence not sent to FSL for examination to establish that seized weapon

used to cause the death of deceased Lankeswar. The propounded

theory of prosecution with regard to the leading to discovery does not

establish that it is within the knowledge of accused and others have

ignorant of the same. And when prosecution failed to connect all the


circumstance against the accused to draw only conclusion of guilty

against the accused the case of prosecution is not established beyond

all reasonable doubt and prays for acquittal of the accused.

EVIDENCE

10. PW-1, Sri Bhaben Talukdar who is the informant cum brother of

the deceased deposed that incident occurred two years back. On

31/08/10 his younger brother Lankeswar Talukdar went to the village

Sandha for the purpose of rehearsal of cultural function as he was a

music teacher. He was at Sandha since 31/08/10 to 02/09/10 and

returned to his house on 02/09/10 as informed by the members of the

rehearsal party. As he did not return, so on the next day they enquired

about him. He search till 03/09/10. On 03/09/10 his son Dipjyoti

Talukdar received message on his mobile phone from the mobile phone

of deceased Lankeswar Talukdar that he will not return to home and

asked them not to think about him. So, they informed Dipul Talukdar,

Harmohan Barman, Dipu Das and Bhupen Barman who are the

members of V.D.P. and village Headman about the message. They also

inquired about the matter. He lodged the ejahar Ext-1 in the police

station. He also stated that Charitra Haloi was to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to

his deceased brother and in this regard son of Charitra Haloi

threatened to his brother and so he suspected Charitra Haloi, his wife

and son committed the murder of his brother. On 02/09/10 to till

07/09/10 they enquired about him but did not trace him out and on

07/09/10 he filed the FIR. The V.D.P. Members went to the residence of

Charitra Haloi and the mobile phone of his brother, Lankeswar was

found in possession of Charitra Haloi and the said message was found

in the Charitra Haloi mobile and before the V.D.P Charitra Haloi

confessed that he committed murder of his deceased brother and cut

into three pieces and buried into three places and village Headman

informed police and police arrested Charitra Haloi and his wife Pramilla

Haloi. Police recovered the dead body of his brother in pieces as shown

by accused Charitra Haloi. Police called him to the residence of Charitra

Haloi and took him to the place of occurrence and one portion of the

body buried near Sakojela river and another portion at ½ km distance


from this place near a pond and the head of the deceased was buried

about ½ km distance under High Power line and he identified the said

portion. Thereafter dead body was taken to SMK Civil Hospital, Nalbari

and there from send to GMCH and post-mortem was done at GMCH.

11. In cross he stated that he did not see the incident and denied

that police did not record his statement and had not stated before the

police what he deposed before the court. On 02/09/10 one message

was received from the mobile phone of deceased and on the next day

VDP members went to the residence of accused and submitted FIR on

07/09/10.

12. PW-2, Dipul Talukdar is the member of V.D.P of Banekuchi

village. His evidence is that Bhaben Talukdar brother of deceased

informed him that his brother Lankeswar Talukdar is missing and

suspecting Charitra Haloi asked them to inquire about Lankeswar to

Charitra Haloi. They went to the house of accused persons and accused

Charitra Haloi confessed before them that he killed Lankeswar by

means of a dao. Accused Charitra Haloi also told that Lankeswar had

illicit relationship with his wife so he killed Lankeswar 2/3 days ago.

They informed the matter to police and police took the accused

persons to the police station. On the next day Circle Officer and police

personnel recovered one portion of dead body as led and shown by

accused persons and 50 meters away from this place police recovered

legs of the deceased as shown by accused and 100 meters away from

his house near a electric post police recovered rest part of the dead

body as led and shown by the accused Charitra Haloi.

13. In cross stated Lankeswar had a shop at Banekuchi Chowk and

he had not seen Lankeswar prior to his death. He also stated that he

does not know what the relation between Pramila and Lankeswar was.

There are no other houses adjacent to the house of accused. On 7.9.10

informant informed them about the incident. At the time of recovery,

village Head man also presents. Accused Charitra Haloi handed over

the seized dao to the police from his house.


14. PW-3, Dr. R. Chaliha is the Medical Officer of this case. On

10/09/10 he performed post-mortem examination on the dead body of

Lankeswar Talukdar on being identified by Constable 491 Jayanta Kalita

and Bhaben Talukdar the elder brother of the deceased in connection

with Nalbari PS Case No.428/10 u/s-302/201/34/ 120(b) IPC and found

as follows:-

External appearance :- A male dead body of about 40 years,

in six pieces. Adipocerous formation is seen (1) Head (2) Right lower

limb (3) Left lower limb (4) Right upper limb (5) Left upper limb (6) Rest

of body. Neck cut at level of 4th cervical vertebrae. Lower limb cut at

level of upper 1/3 right femur. Upper limbs cut at level of upper 1/3

humerus. In left upper limb hand is missing. There is also incise wound

cutting bone present upper third forearm measuring 7 x 5 cm. Scrotum

and penis swollen. No ligature mark seen. Neck cut at level of 4th

cervical vertebrae.

Thorax :- Walis ribs and cartilages is healthy. Pleurae is pale

and healthy. Laryax and tracheae is cut. Right lung is pale and healthy.

Left lung is pale and healthy. Pericardium is healthy. Heart is healthy

and empty. Vessels is healthy.

Abdomen :- Wails is healthy. Peritonoum is healthy. Mouth,

pharynx, esophagus are healthy, stomach is healthy and its contents

rice.

Cranium and spinal canal are healthy. Scalp and skull are

healthy. 4th cervical vertebrae cut. Membrane is pale and healthy. Brain

liquefied. Spinal cord is cut at level of 4th cervical.

Doctor opined that death is instantaneous as a result of the

injuries to the neck described. All the injuries are ante-mortem being

caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon and are homicidal in nature.

15. In cross stated that all the six parts of the dead body were sent

for post mortem examination. Face can be recognized. Dead body

started decomposition and death occurred 3 to 5 days prior to the post

mortem examination.


16. PW-4, Harmohan Barman is the member of V.D.P. of Banekuchi

village deposed that he knows informant and accused persons. The

family members of the deceased informed them about missing of

Lankeswar for some days and the accused persons might be

responsible for his missing. He along with three V.D.P. Members and

village Headman went to the house of the accused at about 9 pm and

on being inquired accused persons confessed before them that they

killed Lankeswar and buried the dead body. Then village Headman,

Dharmeswar Deka informed the matter to the police and police came

to the residence of accused persons and took the accused persons to

the PS. During interrogation accused Charitra Haloi confessed before

the police that he killed the deceased Lankeswar and cut the dead

body into six pieces and put all the pieces in gunny bag and buried the

dead body. They present at the time when accused Charitra Haloi led

the police personnel to the place where the pieces of dead body were

buried at three different places. At that time Circle Officer along with

other people were present there. Accused Charitra Haloi showed the

place where the head of the deceased kept concealed in polythene

behind the electric tower beneath the earth. On being shown by

accused Charitra Haloi, sweeper accompanying the police personnel

disinterred the severed head at about 60 meters away from the said

tower along the side of 'Sakozola Jan'. On being shown by accused

Charitra Haloi police personnel with the help of sweeper disinter two

gunny bags containing the parts of the dead body. One gunny bag

containing the hands and legs, other containing the rest parts of the

body. Altogether three numbers of bags containing parts of the dead

body were disinter on being shown by accused Charitra Haloi. Police

and Magistrate recorded about the said recovery. Police took the dead

body and accused to the police station. Police produced him before the

Magistrate for recording his statement and Magistrate recorded his

statement vide Ext-5.

17. In cross stated deceased Lankeswar Talukdar resided at different

'chupa' but village is same. Nagen Barman, Kamala Barman, Prabhat

Barman and other persons of the 'chupa' of the deceased were present

while the dead body was disintered. The family members of the


deceased informed them that deceased Lankeswar went missing for

about four days. At the time of occurrence Dharmeswar Deka was the

president of the VDP party.

18. PW-5, Sri Babul Talukdar is the elder brother of the deceased. His

evidence is that he knows accused Charitra Haloi and Pramila Haloi and

she is the wife of accused Charitra Haloi. Occurrence happened five

years back. On 31/08/10 his younger brother went to the village

Sandha for rehearsal. As he did not return for two days they searched

for him. They inquire him at rehearsal place of Sandha village and

asked from his friend about Lankeswar and they informed that after

rehearsal he returned to his residence. Thereafter they lodged ejahar.

After lodging ejahar village Headman Dharmeswar Deka and VDP

member Dipul Haloi was sent to the house of accused Charitra Haloi

and Pramila Haloi on suspicion. On being inquired accused Charitra

Haloi confessed before them that he killed Lankeswar and floated dead

body in the river. Police was informed and police brought accused

Charitra Haloi to the police station and on the next day police took him

to Sakojola Jan and as led and shown by accused police recovered the

dead body of Lankeswar from three places and I was present at that

time. The dead body of Lankeswar cut into pieces, put in polythene beg

and hidden in three places. At that time many people were present

there. Police took the cut pieces dead body for post-mortem

examination. Post-mortem examination was done at GMCH.

19. In cross he denied the defence suggestion that as per accused

led and shown he did not recover the dead body of Lankeswar and cut

in pieces keeping in polythene bag from three different places.

Deceased Lankeswar prior to his death told him that he gave Rs

1,50,000/- to accused Charitra. He has visiting term with the accused

and house of accused is at a distance of 1½ furlong from his house.

When police went to the place of occurrence there were approximately

5000 people gathered and as per shown by accused police recovered

the piece of dead body from three different places.

20. PW-6, Sri Bhupen Barman in his evidence stated that he knows

accused Charitra Haloi and his wife, accused Pramila Haloi already


expired. On 7/9/10 Bhaben Talukdar, brother of the deceased informed

village Headman, Dharmeswar Deka that his brother was missing for

last four days and he suspected Charitra Haloi. Then the village

Headman and the family members of the Lankeswar went to the house

of accused Charitra Haloi and on being inquired by them accused

Charitra Haloi confessed before them that he cut Lankeswar into six

pieces and threw away all the pieces in the river. Village Headman

immediately informed the matter to the police and thereafter police

came and apprehended the accused and took him to the police station.

On the next morning Circle Officer, Executive Magistrate with V.D.P.

Party went to the place of occurrence and accused led them to the

place of occurrence and on being shown by accused, police disinter the

cut pieces of the dead body from different places. The pieces of dead

body were wrapped in plastic and same were found inside the three

gunny bag at three different places. Executive Magistrate, Circle Officer

prepared some paper at the spot. Police recorded his statement and

produced before the Magistrate for recording his statement and

Magistrate recorded his statement vide Ext-6.

21. In cross he stated house of accused is situated at a distance of

around ¼ km from Banekuchi chowk and about 5000 people gathered

in the house of accused Charitra Haloi.

22. PW-7 Deepak Das stated in his evidence that he knows

informant and accused persons and at the time of incident he was at

his shop at Banekuchi. On the date of occurrence at 10:30/11 pm

village Headman took them to the house of Charitra Haloi and on being

inquired by them accused Chartra Haloi confessed before them that he

murdered Lankeswar. Village Headman immediately informs the matter

to Police. Police came to the house of accused at 3:30 am and they

were also in the house of accused. Police took accused Charitra Haloi

and his wife, Pramila Haloi to the police station and they also came to

the police station. On that at about 5/6 am police again took Charitra

Haloi to his house along with village Headman and Charitra Haloi

showed the place where he kept the dead body. He saw the pieces of


dead body keeping in a gunny bag in the compound of accused and

gave statement before the Magistrate.

23. In cross stated as brothers of accused suspected Charitra might

have involved in the incident so they went to the house of accused

Charitra. When Charitra confess before them at that time 100/150

people gathered at the place of occurrence. After seeing the dead body

excited people broke the house of accused.

24. PW-8 Dhiren Talukdar is the brother of the deceased. His

evidence is that his brother Lankeswar was missing 3 days prior to

lodging ejahar. Police seized one dao measuring 22” length vide Ext-2

which was produced by Charitra Haloi.

25. PW-9 Samsul Ali is seizure witness. Police seized two mobiles in

his presence vide Ext-8.

26. PW-10 Pulen Das, SI(P) deposed in his evidence that on 07/09/10

while he was working as S.I at Nalbari PS, on that day O.C Nalbari PS

Jatin Saikia after receiving an ejahar from Bhaben Talukdar registered

Nalbari PS Case No.428/10 u/s-120-B/302/201 IPC and entrusted him

with the charge of investigation. During investigation he visited the

place of occurrence; prepared the sketch map of the place of

occurrence vide Ext-8; recorded the statement of the witnesses.

Accused persons disclosed before him that dead body of Lankeswar

was buried in the compound of the accused so they and VDP party

guarded the compound of the accused for the whole day. On

08/09/2010 in presence of Executive Magistrate Miss Jesmin (Circle

Officer Nalbari) they searched the compound and accused led and

shown two severed hands and two legs of human were found in buried

condition from a drain named 'Sakojan' which is situated at the back

side of the house of the accused. They also recovered a headless trunk

in a polythene bag of a human without legs and hands in presence of

witnesses as led and shown by accused at the side of 'Sakojan'. They

also recovered severed head of a human at a distance of 20 meters

away from the house of accused in the north-eastern side under an


electrical tower as led and shown by accused Charitra Haloi in

presence of witnesses. Ext-9 is the sketch map of the place where from

severed hand and legs were recovered and Ext-10 is the sketch map of

the place where from the trunk of a human being was recovered. He

recorded the leading to discovery statement of accused vide Ext-12.

Ext-13 is the leading to discovery statement of the accused relating to

the severed hands and legs. Ext-14 is the leading to discovery

statement of the accused relating to the trunk. Ext-15 is the leading to

discovery statement of the accused Charitra Haloi whereby he showed

the dao and cut pieces of the dead body. He seized the dao vide Ext-2.

Executive Magistate N. Jesmin performed Inquest on the parts of the

dead body of Lankeswar vide 7 nos of inquest report. Ext-16-A to Ext-

16-G are the inquest reports. He also seized two mobile handsets vide

Ext-8. He sent the part of the dead body to GMCH, arrested accused

Chartra Haloi and Pramila Haloi and produced them before the

CJM,Nalbari. He collected post-mortem report from GMCH. In the mean

time he transferred from Nalbari PS so he handed over the CD to

Jatindra Nath Saikia, O/C Nalbari PS and O/C Jatindra Nath Saikia

submitted charge-sheet against accused Charitra Haloi and Pramila

Haloi u/s-302/201 IPC vide Ext-17.

27. In cross he stated that he produced accused Charita Haloi and

Pramila Haloi before the court and sought for police custody for

interrogation. On completion of police custody he produced the

accused persons before the CJM,Nalbari. On 13/09/10 he made prayer

before CJM, Nalbari for recording confessional statement. As per ejahar

deceased Lankeswawr was missing since night of 02/09/10. On

07/09/10 he visited the house of accused and brought accused to the

police station. On 08/09/10 at about 7:25 am accused Charitra Haloi

showed the cut parts of the dead body of deceased and at that time

2000/3000 persons were present at the place of occurrence. Accused

Charitra Haloi led and showed the body parts of the deceased and

gave confessional statement before him. He also stated that on

08/09/10 he recorded the leading to discovery statement of accused

Charitra and the said statement was recorded in the PS. He denied the

defence suggestion that accused did not give any leading to discovery


statement before him. It is also denied by him that the dao was not

recovered as per leading to discovery statement of the accused so he

did not send the dao for forensic examination. As per Ext-2 a 'dao' was

recovered from the house of accused Charitra Haloi on 08/09/10 at

7:15 am.

DISCUSSION, DECISION & REASON THERE OF:

28. To arrive at the just decision of the case, I have scrutinized the

entire case record and also perused the case diary.

29. This prosecution case having no eye witness and is based on

circumstantial evidence. When the prosecution case wholly clinches on

circumstantial evidence it is the duty of the prosecution to connect all

the circumstances to form a complete chain of circumstances against

the accused that could point out only guilty of the accused and no

inference of accused innocence.

30. In Sucha Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2001) 4 SCC 375 held “in

para 19 we pointed out that section 100 of Evidence Act is not

intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilty of

the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, but the section would apply

to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts for

which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of

certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of special knowledge

regarding such facts failed to offer any explanation which might drive

the court to draw a different inferences.”

31. In Bodh Raj @ Bohda & ors Vs State of Jammu & Kashmir, (2002)

8 SCC it is held that circumstantial evidence can be a sole basis for

conviction provided the condition as stated below satisfied. Conditions

are:-

(1) The circumstances from which guilt is established must be fully

proved;


(2) That all the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the

guilt of the accused;

(3) That all the circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and

tendency;

(4) That the circumstances should, to a moral certainly, actual ex-

cludes every hypothesis except one proposed to be proved.

32. It was again observed in Bodh Raj @ Bohda & ors Vs State of

Jammu & Kashmir, (2002) 8 SCC “It has been consistently laid down by

this court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence,

the intervene of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating

facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the

innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person”. “ The

circumstances from which an intervene as to the guilt of the accused is

drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be

shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be

informed from those circumstances”.

33. In Gagan Kanojia & Anr Vs. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal no.

561-62 of 2005 Hon’ble Apex Court held “The prosecution case is

based on circumstantial evidence. Indisputably, charges can be proved

on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, when direct evidence is not

available. It is well-settled that in a case based on a circumstantial

evidence, the prosecution must prove that within all human

probabilities, the act must have been done by the accused. It is,

however, necessary for the courts to remember that there is a long gap

between 'may be true' and 'must be true'. Prosecution case is required

to be covered by leading cogent, believable and credible evidence.

Whereas the court must raise a presumption that the accused is

innocent and in the event two views are possible, one indicating to his

guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the defence

available to the accused should be accepted, but at the same time, the


court must not reject the evidence of the prosecution, proceeding on

the basis that they are false, not trustworthy, unreliable and made on

flimsy grounds or only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. The

prosecution case, thus, must be judged in its entirety having regard to

the totality of the circumstances. The approach of the court should be

an integrated one and not truncated or isolated. The court should use

the yardstick of probability and appreciate the intrinsic value of the

evidence brought on records and analyze and assess the same

objectively.

34. We would proceed on the well-known principles in regard to

appreciation of the circumstantial evidence which were noticed by the

High Court in the following terms :

"1) There must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave

any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence

of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human

probability the act must have been done by the accused.

2) Circumstantial evidence can be reasonably made the basis of an

accused person's conviction if it is of such character that it is wholly

inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and is consistent only

with his guilt.

3) There should be no missing links but it is not that every one of the

links must appear on the surface of the evidence, since some of these

links may only be inferred from the proven facts.

4) On the availability of two inferences, the one in favour of the

accused must be accepted.

5) It cannot be said that prosecution must meet any and every hypoth-

esis put forwarded by the accused however far-fetched and fanciful it

might be. Nor does it mean that prosecution evidence must be rejected

on the slightest doubt because the law permits rejection if the doubt is

reasonable and not otherwise."


35. In Krishnan Vs State (2008) 15 SCC 430 Hon’ble Apex court

observe;

‘The circumstances from which an inference of guilty is sought to

be drawn must be cogently and firmly established;

Those circumstances should be of definite tendency unerringly

pointing towards guilt of the accused;

The circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so

complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that with all

human probability the crime was committed by the accused and

none else; and

The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must

be complete and in capable of explanation of any other hypothe-

sis then that of the guilty of the accused and such evidence

should not only be consistent with the guilty of the accused but

should be inconsistent with his innocence.”

36. Again, Hon’ble Apex court in the Navaneetthakrishnan Vs. State

of Inspector of Police Criminal Appeal No. 1134/13 in para 23 made

observation that “The law is well settled that each and every

incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and

clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain

of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of

the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the

guilt is possible. In a case depending largely upon circumstantial

evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may

take the place of legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various

circumstances in the chain of events must be such as to rule out a

reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. When the

important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the

other circumstances cannot, in any manner, establish the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The court has to be watchful and

avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal

proof for sometimes, unconsciously it may happen to be a short step


between moral certainty and legal proof. There is a long mental

distance between “may be true” and “must be true” and the same

divides conjectures from sure conclusions. The Court in mindful of

caution by the settled principles of law and the decisions rendered by

this Court that in a given case like this, where the prosecution rests on

the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must place and prove all

the necessary circumstances, which would constitute a complete chain

without a snap and pointing to the hypothesis that except the accused,

no one had committed the offence”.

37. Going through the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court it

is now crystal clear that when prosecution case is hinged on

circumstantial evidence prosecution must prove every link of the chain

of circumstance and it must be one complete chain of circumstances

and circumstances must bring on record only guilty of the accused and

no inference of his innocence and the circumstances only connect it to

a conclusion of fact which proves only guilty of the accused and there

must be a complete chain of circumstances and there should not be

any dent, snapping, dislocation of the chain of circumstances.

38. Now, let me analyze the evidence on record keeping in touch

with the aforesaid settled principle on circumstantial evidence to find

out if evidence on record form one complete chain of circumstances

that could drawn only guilty of the accused and no inference of his

innocence. That is to say, to find out if prosecution able to satisfy the

principle of circumstantial evidence against the accused or not.

39. Ext-1 is the ejahar. Pw-1 is the informant of this case. In ext-1

pw1 Bhaben Talukdar make statement that on 31/08/10 his brother

Lankeswar Talukdar went to village Sandha for rehearsal for a cultural

event and on 03-09-10, informant came to know that on 02/09/10

Lankeswar Talukdar was returning from rehearsal to his own house

situated at village Banekuchi but he did not reach home and there was

no connection between informant and Lankeswar (deceased) took

place. So from 03/09/10, they made search for Lankeswar but could not

trace out him. Therefore on 07/09/10, they went to the house of

accused Charitra Haloi as there is a dispute present between Charitra


and Lankeswar over lending of money to accused Charitra which

accused did not return. On asking Charitra Haloi and his wife Pramila

Haloi about Lankeswar they gave deferent reply and finding difference

in statement of Charitra and Pramila Haloi it lead suspicion on Charitra

Haloi and his wife Pramila Haloi for committing murder of Lankeswar

and then hiding the dead body in some unknown place.

40. PW-1’s evidence is that on 31/08/10 his younger brother

Lankeswar went to Sandha for rehearsal of cultural function. He made

this statement in his ejahar ext-1. Pw-1 again stated that on 31/08/10

to 02/09/10 till evening Lankeswar was at village Sandha and at 8.30

pm he returned to his residence as informed by the members of the

party of rehearsal but did not reached his home on that night and or on

next day. Pw-1 again stated on 03/09/10 his son Dipjyoti Talukdar

received one message on his mobile from the mobile of deceased

Lankeswar that he will not return to home and asked them not to think

about him. Accordingly, he informed this matter to VDP personal Dipul

Talukdar, Harmohan Barman, Dipu Das, Bhupen Barman and village

head man and they enquired about the matter asked accused Charitra

about Lankeswar.

41. PW-1 in his ejahar stated when his brother did not return home

on 02/09/10 and till next day 03/09/10, they made search for him and

while adducing evidence also stated they made search for him. Pw-1

deposed accused Charitra have to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to his deceased

brother and son of Charitra Haloi threatened to kill Lankeswar therefore

he suspected Charitra, his wife and son committed the murder. Before

the court he stated that as they made search for the deceased he

lodged the ejahar on 07/09/10 when unable to trace out deceased

Lankeswar. His evidence further pointed that VDP members went to the

residence of Charitra Haloi and found the mobile phone of Lankeswar in

possession of Chartira Haloi and the said message was also found and

on enquiry Charitra confessed before the VDP members that he

committed murder of deceased Lankeswar and cut into three pieces

and buried the pieces, then village head man Dharmeswar Deka (since

deceased) informed the police and police arrested Charitra Haloi and

Pramila Haloi (since deceased).


42. In the ejahar PW-1, disclosed that they enquired Charitra Haloi

and his wife and found difference in their statement. While adducing

evidence he disclosed that they went to the house of Charitra. So,

there is corroboration in his statement. FIR need not be an

encyclopedia, it must reveal the story of the prosecution and that very

ingredient is present in ext-1. Testimony of PW-1 pointed on asking

Charitra, he confessed the commission of murder. The further

statement of the pw-1, pointed that mutilated body of deceased

recovered by the police as shown by the accused Charitra. His

evidence further pointed police called him to the residence of Charitra

Haloi and accused Charitra Haloi took them to the place of recovery of

the cut pieces of the dead body, and as shown by accused one portion

of the body of the deceased recovered from Sakojola River side and

another portion at half km from this place near a pond and head of the

deceased was buried about half km distance under tower of high power

electric line and he identified the said portion as his brother’s head.

After the recovery of the mutilated dead body same was sent to

SMKCH, Nalbari from where dead body sent to GMCH, Guwahati for

post mortem and after post mortem dead body was handed over to

them and they cremated the dead body.

43. In cross stated that message was received from the mobile of

deceased on 02/09/10 and VDP member went to the residence of

accused on next day. His brother was a music teacher of Sankardev

Sishu school and drawn a salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. There is no

cross examination of defence on the point of recovery of dead body as

shown by the accused in presence of PW-1 near the Sakojela river, near

a pond and under a high power electric line and each the places are

half km distance from each other and the testimonies of PW-1 is an un-

rebutted, unassailable piece of evidence.

44. The reading of the testimony of the PW-1 together with his

statement made in the ejahar clearly goes to show that from 31/08/10

till 8.30 PM of 02/09/10 Lankeswar was present at Sandha with the

troupe of cultural event and at 8.30 PM he left to his home, but did not

reach home till 03/09/10 so they made search for the Lankeswar and

when unable to trace him out, he and other family member tell village


gaonburah and VDP personal pf their village about their apprehension

against the accused Charitra as he is to pay money to Lankeswar and

for that reason dispute started between two. So thus, PW-1 in his

ejahar and while adducing evidence reasonably stated and explained

the reason for delay in lodging the ejahar and under the facts and

circumstances and from the evidence of the PW-1 I find that delay in

filing the ejahar is not fatal for the prosecution.

45. PW-2, Dipul Talukdar, PW-4 Harmohan Barman, PW-6 Bhupen

Barman, deposed that at the time of incident they are members of VDP.

PW-1 stated that at the time of incident Dipul Talukdar, Harmohan,

Bhupen Barman, Dipu Das are the members of VDP and he informed

them about the incident of missing of Lankeswar Talukdar and the

message received by them and he suspected Charitra upon the

missing of his brother as Charitra is to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to his

deceased brother.

46. PW-2 Dipul Talukdar, PW-4 Harmohan Barman, PW-6 Bhupen

Barman stated them that PW-1 informed them and Dharmeswar,

village head man (since deceased) about the missing of his brother

Lankeswar and PW-1 Bhaben suspected accused Charitra Haloi. The

statement of PW-1 made in the ejahar, before the court is corroborated

by PW-2, PW-4, PW-6 and nothing comes out to disbelief the statement

of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, PW-6 with regard to the point of PW-1 telling

them about missing of deceased Lankeswar, PW-1 suspecting accused

Charitra and they went to the house of accused with village gaonbura

and interrogated accused Charitra about Lankeswar, deceased of the

case.

47. PW-1 deposed that he along with VDP personal and village head

man went to the house of Charitra and enquired about Lankeswar. PW-

2 Dipul Talukdar stated that he and other VDP personal went to the

house of accused Charitra and interrogate Charitra and his wife and

Charitra disclosed before them that he gave dao blow on Lankeswar on

the doorstep of his house as Lankeswar maintain illicit relationship with

his wife and he committed the murder of Lankeswar 2-3 days ago. They


informed police, police arrived and took custody of the Charitra and his

wife.

48. PW-4 deposed he along with other three VDP personal and

gaonburah went to the house of accused and on being enquired, both

the accused person Charitra and Pramila Haloi (Since Deceased)

confessed before them that they killed Lankeswar and buried the dead

body. Then village head man Dharmeswar Deka informed the matter to

the police. Police came and at about 4 am took Charitra Haloi and

Pramila Haloi to the police station.

49. PW-6 stated after getting the information from PW-1 he and

other VDP members and village head man and family members of

deceased Lankeswar went to the house of accused and on being

enquired accused Charitra Haloi confessed that he cut Lankeswar in 6

pieces and threw away all the pieces in river and then stated that he

buried the pieces in the ground, the village head man informed the

matter to police over mobile and police came and took the accused to

the police station.

50. All the 3 PWs before the court deposed that on getting

information from informant about the missing of Lankeswar and based

on their suspicion on accused Charitra they went to the house of

accused Charitra made enquiry and accused Charitra confessed before

them that he had committed murder of Lankeswar. It is also revealed

from the evidence of PW-2, PW-4, and PW-6 that before them accused

made further confession that he had cut the body of Lankeswar into

pieces and then buried. It was the village head man who informed the

police over phone and police arrived took accused person to the police

station.

51. PW-7 Dipak Das stated that he knows informant Bhaben

Talukdar. Deceased Lankeswar Talukdar and accused Charitra Haloi. His

further evidence is that at the time of incident he owned one shop at

Banekuchi chowk and shopkeeper guard their shop at night and on the

night of incident when they are guarding their shop in Banekuchi

chowk village head man of Bankeuchi village at about 10.30-11 pm


took him to the house of accused Charitra and at that time wife of

accused Charitra namely Pramila was also present. He further deposed

that before this incident deceased Lankeswar was missing and in

connection with the missing of Lankeswar village head man and others

came to the house of Lankeswar as Lankeswar used the visit the house

of Charitra. On asking Charitra in their presence accused Charitra

confessed that he had committed murder of Lankeswar and gaonburah

informed the police and on that night police came at around 3.30 am

and took Charitra and his wife to the police station till then all of them

are present in the house of accused Charitra. PW-7 also made similar

statement to that of PW-2, PW-4 and PW-6 and corroborated the

statement of PW-1, the informant of the case.

52. PW-5 stated deceased is his youngest brother and informant is

his elder brother and he knows accused Charitra and Pramila Haloi

(since deceased). PW-5 deposed on 31/08/10 his brother Lankeswar

went to Sandha for rehearsal and he did not return home for 2 days so

they made search for him and making enquiry to the friends of

Lankeswar who were present in the rehearsal came to know that

Lankeswar returned home but he did not reach home. Getting the

information they prepared for lodging the FIR in the PS and went to the

house of village head man Dharmeswar Deka and VDP members and

told them they suspect accused Charitra and Pramila for missing of

Lankeswar and asked for questioning them.

53. PW-5 also deposed in the similar line with that of PW-1. He

further deposed village head man and VDP members visit the house of

accused and on enquiry accused Charitra admitted and made

statement that he committed murder of Lankeswar and threw his body

in the river. Police was informed and police arrived and took Charitra to

the police station and on next day police again came along with

accused and as lead by accused went to Sakojela spring and as shown

by accused from 3 places mutilated body of Lankeswar recovered by

the police and he was present at that time. Accused Charitra after

cutting the dead body of Lankeswa into pieces wrapped in polythene

and then buries the same and village people present when mutilated

dead body of Lankeswar was recovered. Recovered mutilated body


sent for post mortem and he deposed accused borrowed money from

his brother Lankeswar.

54. PW-2 Dipul Talukdar, PW-4 Harmohan Barman, PW-6 Bhupen

Barman, PW-7 Dipak Das in their statement before the court stated

that in the morning police came with accused and as shown by the

accused police recovered mutilated parts of the body of the deceased.

55. PW-2 deposed that on the next day along with circle officer

brought accused Charitra and his wife and at first accused took them to

the Sakojela jan flowing in the backside of house of accused and shown

the place where parts of the body of the Lankeswar is buried which

were wrapped in a bag and thereafter at a distance of 50 meters from

this place from another place as shown by the accused leg of the

deceased was recovered and about 100 meter distance from the

accused house near a electric post remaining parts of the dead body of

Lankeswar was recovered which were buried by the accused and police

seized the same. He further stated that police seized the dao which is

used by accused in commission of murder of Lankeswar as produced

by the accused from his house vide Ext-2 seizure list and Ext-2(1) is the

signature of him.

56. He further deposed he made statement before the Magistrate

and Ext-3 is his statement.

57. PW-4 stated on the next early morning police came along with

circle officer and accused Charitra Haloi during interrogation by the

police in their presence confessed that he had killed the deceased

Lankeswar Talukdar cut the dead body into pieces and put the pieces in

gunny bag and buried the same. Then accused was again brought back

from the police station and circle officer was also present and at this

time accused took police, circle officer and them to Sakojela jan, runs

behind the house of accused and accused show the place where head

of the deceased were kept concealed in a polythene behind the electric

tower and at a distance of 60 meters from this tower along the said jan

the other parts of the bodies recovered kept in gunny bag. On being


shown by the accused 3rd part is also recovered as shown by the

accused.

58. PW-6 Bhupen Barman stated that they went the police station

when police took the accused person and police in the morning again

came along with circle officer to the place of occurrence and accused

lead the police party to the place of occurrence and on being shown by

accused police disinterred the cut pieces of the dead body from 3

different places and cut pieces were first wrapped in a polythene and

then put into the gunny bag thereafter buried in 3 different places.

59. PW-7, stated that when police took custody of the accused they

also went to the police station with gaonburah and other personal and

on that day after interrogation, the accused again came to the place of

occurrence i.e accused house at about 5-6 am, and at that time

accused Charitra shown the place where he kept the parts of the dead

body of the deceased and as shown by accused Charitra cut pieces of

dead body of deceased Lankeswar were recovered in their presence. All

the PWs stated that they are present when police recovered the parts

of the dead body as shown by the accused person namely Charitra.

60. PW-7 deposed that he made statement before magistrate on the

recovery of dead body. PW-6 also stated that he made statement

before the magistrate, Ext-6 is the statement of PW-6 u/s-164 CrPC and

Ext-7 is the statement of PW-7 u/s-164 CrPC, Ext-3 is the statement

u/s-164 CrPC of PW-2, Ext-5 is the statement of PW-4 recorded u/s-164

CrPC.

61. The cross of PW-2 is that there is no residence present near the

house of accused Charitra and accused house is about 500-700 meter

away from his house. Informant told them about the incident on

07/09/10 and he made statement before the police on the same night

and his statement recorded by the magistrate on 28/09/10. He

deposed that village head man was present at the time of recovery and

accused produced the seized dao from his house and prior to the

seizure and recovery of the dead body police took custody of the


accused. In cross PW-2 also stated parts of the cut pieces of the dead

body were recovered as shown by accused form 3 places.

62. PW-4 in cross stated the family members of the deceased

informed them about the missing of the deceased for last 4 days from

the date of telling them and informant Bhaben Talukdar advised them

to visit the house of accused to make enquiry about the deceased. He

deposed Dharmeswar Deka was president of VDP at the time of

incident and he died.

63. PW-6 in cross stated that occurrence took place on 07/09/10

they were at Banekuchi and along with the police about 5000 people

gathered in the house of Charitra Haloi. From the cross examination of

PW-6, I find that defence did not cross examined the PW-6 on the point

of recovery of cut pieces of dead body of Lankeswar and accused

making confession before him in presence of other PWs, police that

accused Charitra stated that he had committed murder of Lankeswar

and then cut the body of Lankeswar Talukdar and buried his dead body

in three different places that were recovered at the instance of the

accused on next morning of his confession. Thus the unassailable

statement of PW-6 is believable beyond all reasonable doubt and his

piece of testimonies is corroborated by the testimonies of other PWs.

64. On scrutiny of the cross examination on PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 to PW-

7, I find that defence failed to destabilize their piece of testimonies on

the point of accused making statement that he had committed murder

of Lankeswar and then cut the body into pieces and that cut pieces of

dead body recovered as shown by accused Charitra haloi.

65. PW-8, Dhiren Talukdar deposed Lankeswar was missing 3 days

prior to lodging the ejahar and police seized one dao measuring 22

inch length on being produced by Charitra Haloi vide Ext-2. In cross

stated he being illiterate person he cannot read what is written in Ext-

2. He denied accused Charitra did not produce the dao. PW-3 is the MO

of the case and he opined that death is instantaneous as a result of the

injuries to the neck described. His evidence pointed deceased died in

one blow that inflicted on his neck and that was caused by very sharp


weapon and size of the dao tell how its sharpness is. It is further

revealed from the evidence of MO that death is caused about 3 to 5

days prior to the postmortem. Deceased Lankeswar is missing from

03/09/10. PW-2, PW-4 to PW-7 came to know about the incident on

07/09/10 and on 07/09/10 murder of Lankeswar came to light and

doctor report show this is a case of homicide and postmortem report

and oral evidence pointed murder of Lankeswar caused before

07/09/10 and there is no second point coming. PW-3 further deposed

face was recognizable and decomposition started. Face of the dead

body was recognizable and PW-1 identified the body to be dead body of

Lankeswar dead body after recovery of the head of the Lankeswar. At

the time of inquest cut pieces assembled to form one body and

identification took place by Biren Talukdar and Babul Talukdar. Thus,

the identification of the dead body took place beyond reasonable doubt

to be the dead body of deceased Lankeswar.

66. In Gura Singh Vs State of Rajasthan 2001 2 SCC 205 Hon’ble

Apex Court observed “It is settled position of law that extra-judicial

confession, if true and voluntary, it can be relied upon by the court to

convict the accused for the commission of the crime alleged. Despite

inherent weakness of extra judicial confession as an item of evidence,

it cannot be ignored when shown that such confession was made

before a person who has no reason to state falsely and to whom it is

made in the circumstances which tend to support the statement”.

67. In the Gura Singh case, Hon’ble Apex Court discussed Maghar

Singh Vs State of Punjab AIR 1975 SC 1320 wherein held that the

evidence in the form of extra judicial confession made by the accused

to witnesses cannot be always termed to be tainted evidence.

Corroboration of such evidence is required only by way of abundant

caution. If the court believes the witness before whom the confession is

made and is satisfied that the confession was true and voluntary made,

then the conviction can be founded on such evidence alone.

68. In the case of Narayan Singh Vs. State of M.P AIR 1985 SC 1678

Hon’ble Apex Court made observation that “ this Court cautioned that


it is not open to the court trying the criminal case to start with

presumption that extra judicial confession is always a weak type of

evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time

when the confession is made and the credibility of the witnesses who

speak for such a confession. The retraction of extra-judicial confession

which is a usual phenomenon in criminal cases would by itself not

weaken the case of the prosecution based upon such a confession.”

69. Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Lal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh in

Criminal Appeal No. 576 of 2010 in para 13 held “ Extra-judicial

confession is a weak piece of evidence and the court must ensure that

the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution

evidence. In order to accept extra-judicial confession, it must be

voluntary and must inspire confidence. If the court is satisfied that the

extra-judicial confession is voluntary, it can be acted upon to base the

conviction.” Hon’ble Apex Court in para 14 and 15 again held “14. It is

well settled that conviction can be based on a voluntarily confession

but the rule of prudence requires that wherever possible it should be

corroborated by independent evidence. Extra-judicial confession of

accused need not in all cases be corroborated.” “15…………, if the

court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can

be based upon the same. Rule of Prudence does not require that each

and every circumstance mentioned in the confession with regard to the

participation of the accused must be separately and independently

corroborated.

70. In Gagan Kanojia & another vs State of Punjab, criminal appeal

561-62 of 2005 decided on 24-11-06 Hon’ble Apex Court held “Extra-

judicial confession, as is well-known, can form the basis of a conviction.

By way of abundant caution, however, the court may look for some

corroboration. Extra-judicial confession cannot ipso facto be termed to

be tainted. An extra-judicial confession, if made voluntarily and proved

can be relied upon by the courts. [See Sukhwant Singh @ Balwinder

Singh v. State through CBI - AIR 2003 SC 3362].


71. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sahadevan & Anr Vs. State of T. Nadu, Cri.

Appeal No. 1405/2008 held, “ 17. While explaining the dimensions of

the principles governing the admissibility and evidentiary value of an

extra-judicial confession, this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v.

Raja Ram [(2003) 8 SCC 180] stated the principle that an extra-judicial

confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be

relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any

other fact. The value of evidence as to confession, like any other evi-

dence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been

made. The Court, further expressed the view that such a confession

can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evi-

dence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who

appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused and

in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate

that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to

the accused.” “19. Accepting the admissibility of the extra-judicial con-

fession, the Court in the case of Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan

[(2010) 10 SCC 604] held that :-“29. There is no absolute rule that an

extra-judicial confession can never be the basis of a conviction, al-

though ordinarily an extra-judicial confession should be corroborated

by some other material. [Vide Thimma and Thimma Raju v. State of

Mysore, Mulk Raj v. State of U.P., Sivakumar v. State (SCC paras 40 and

41 : AIR paras 41 & 42), Shiva KaramPayaswamiTewari v. State of Ma-

harashtra and Mohd. Azad v. State of W.B.]30. In the present case, the

extra-judicial confession by Balwan has been referred to in the judg-

ments of the learned Magistrate and the Special Judge, and it has been

corroborated by the other material on record. We are satisfied that the

confession was voluntary and was not the result of inducement, threat

or promise as contemplated by Section 24 of the Evidence Act, 1872.”

72. Again in para 21 and 22 of the Sahadevan & Anr Vs State of

TamilNadu case Hon’ble Apex Court held, “21 Extra judicial confession

must be established to be true and made voluntarily and in a fit state

of mind. The words of the witnesses must be clear, unambiguous and

should clearly convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime.


The extra judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of

conviction, if passes the test of credibility.” “22.Upon a proper analysis

of the above-referred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to

state the principles which would make an extra- judicial confession an

admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction

of an accused. These precepts would guide the judicial mind while

dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies

upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the ac-

cused.

The Principles:

i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It

has to be examined by the court with greater care and

caution.

ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.

iii) It should inspire confidence.

iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and

evidentiary value, if it is supported by a chain of cogent

circumstances and is further corroborated by other

prosecution evidence.

v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of

conviction, it should not suffer from any material

discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.

vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any

other fact and in accordance with law.”

73. Going through the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court

on extra Judicial Confession and when the aforesaid principle is applied


in the case in hand I find the starting point of this case is one message

received by the family member of the deceased from the mobile

handset of the deceased. This mobile handset is seized by police in

presence of PW-9 and PW-9 evidence is confined with the seizure of

mobile vide Ext-8. This is the mobile from which son of PW-1 received

message from Lankeswar that they need not to worry for him and this

mobile is found in the house of accused Charitra and the message led

suspicion about the missing of the Lankeswar and for that reason PW-1

asked village head man and VDP personel, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-6 to ask

accused Charitra about the Lankeswar and for that reason PW-2, PW-4,

PW6 with PW-7 and village head man came to the house of accused to

enquiry about Lankeswar and at that point of time accused Charitra

made confession that he had committed murder of Lankeswar. The

recovery of the mobile of the deceased in the house of accused is

another vital evidence of this case that link accused with the incident

of murder of the accused. How the mobile of Lankeswar comes to the

house of accused is not answered by the accused is another point of

accused hand in the murder of deceased.

74. PW-1 stated noticing of the mobile of deceased in the house of

accused. Thus, the seized mobile and its recovery in the house of

accused pointed and show presence of deceased just before his death

in the house of accused and from where deceased gone missing and

his mutilated dead body recovered at the instance of the accused and

prior to it none have any information where deceased was and whether

he was alive or dead.

75. The IO of the case PW-10 evidence pointed he recorded each of

the recovery of the parts of the body of the deceased at the instance of

the accused when accused led them to the place of recovery. IO also

recorded the statement of accused on recovery of weapon of offence

on being produced by the accused. The dao is recovered at the house

of accused which accused kept at his house after commission of the

offence and seized on being produced by accused. The signature of

accused Charitra is present in Ext-2 seizure list of dao and he did not

deny his signature in Ext-2 when put to him in question No.60 of his

u/s-313 CrPC statement. Ext-12, 13, 14 and 15 are those statements of


accused on the point of recovery at his instance. The recovery is made

possible base on the accused statement before the police and

witnesses of the case.

76. Statement of the PW1, PW2, PW4 to PW-7 and PW-10 the IO of

the case pointed at night police took accused at the police station and

then in the early morning at about 4 to 5 am again police came with

accused first at his house and at this time police came with executive

magistrate and all the PWs were present except the Pw-3, the medical

officer of the case and at this time in the morning, police recovered the

parts of the dead body of the deceased Lankeswar as led and shown by

the accused Charitra Haloi and this unequivocal statement of all the

PWs goes to show that it was accused statement that led the discovery

of the mutilated dead body of the deceased Lankeswar and there is

nothing else that favour the accused. It is the accused statement

before the witnesses and IO of the case that made possible for the

recovery of the cut pieces of the dead body of the deceased

Lankeswar. It was village headman (since deceased) who informed

police when accused before him and VDP personel, the witnesses of

the case that he had committed the murder of the Lankeswar and then

cut him into pieces and buried the cut pieces of the dead body after

putting the same in bags. Here, accused Charitra’s extra judicial

confession string up the investigation of the case in the right direction

and police able to unfurl the mystery surrounded with the missing of

the Lankeswar from the night of 02/09/10 after his return from village

Sandha.

77. The statement of PW-2, PW-4, PW-6 and PW-7 pointed all of them

are independent person. PW-2, PW-4 and PW-6 are VDP personel and

PW-7 is a shop keeper. All of them went to the house of accused with

village headman (since deceased) and they interrogate the accused

about Lankeswar. There is no hint of force, inducement, coercion, force

used to extract the statement from the accused and at that time

accused first make statement that he had committed murder of

Lankeswar and cut the body into pieces and put in bag and then

hidden the same. So thus, immediately village head man after

confession of the accused about the guilty of murder of Lankeswar,


informed police and police arrived and took accused Charitra to police

station. Witnesses of the case also accompanied police with accused to

the police station. It is in the next morning large gathering took place

when police again brought accused at his house for recovery of the

weapon of offence and dead body of the Lankeswar recovered. Accused

make confession to PW-2, PW-4, PW-6, PW-7 and PW1 and PW-5 before

the arrival of the police. Thus I find the extra judicial confession which

is free, voluntary statement of the accused and that led to the

discovery of the cut pieces of the dead body is safe, cogent and

reliable piece of evidence without any impediment.

78. Coupled with the aforesaid decision on the extra judicial

confession it is evident that settled position of law to rely upon the

extra judicial confession is that it must satisfied that it is voluntary and

is not the result of inducement, threat, or promise envisaged under

section 24 of Evidence Act or was brought about in suspicious

circumstances to circumvent section 25 and section 26 of the Evidence

Act. Extra Judicial Confession if found not made under promise, threat,

inducement, and voluntary it can be acted upon without corroboration

and corroboration is only required for safe application of the same to

avoid any conflict.

79. In the instant case, prosecution fairly able to bring on record

several circumstances against the accused of his involvement in

murder of the deceased extra judicial confessional statement of the

accused leading to discovery of the dead body of the deceased at the

instance of the accused, recovery of the mobile handset of the

deceased in the house of the accused together with the autopsy report

that pointed the instantaneous death on one blow on the neck of the

deceased, seizure of the weapon of offence big size dao which is sharp

cutting weapon and is seized on being produced by the accused from

his house in presence of the witness who are independent person of

the case drawn only guilty of accused Charitra Haloi’s and no inference

of innocence is appearing. The unequivocal circumstances only have

drawn the guilty of the accused.


80. Section 27 of the Evidence Act says- “27. How much of

information received from accused may be proved –Provided that,

when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of

information received from a person accused of any offence, in the

custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it

amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby

discovered, may be proved.”

81. In Vasanta Sampat Dupanevs State of Maharastra( 2015) 1 SCC

253 it was held that recovery of the dead body of the deceased at the

instance of the accused would be a fact within the special knowledge

of the accused, and therefore, the said recovery including the recovery

of cloth in said cap, were admissible and are relevant evidence as per

section 27 of Evidence Act.

82. Here in this case extra judicial confessional statement of the

accused led the discovery of the dead body of the victim and same

satisfy the essential ingredients of section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Thus, it is applicable.

83. In Anil @ Raju NamdevPatilvs Administration Of Daman & Diu

and anr (2006) 13 SCC 36, Hon’ble Apex Court held “23. The

information disclosed by the evidences leading to the discovery of a

fact which is based on mental state of affair of the accused is, thus,

admissible in evidence.”

84. In Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jeet Singh (1999) 4 SCC 370 opined that

when an object is discovered from an isolated place pointed out by the

accused, the same would be admissible in evidence.

85. In Prakashchand Vs State (Delhi Administration) (1979) 3 SCC,

Hon’ble Apex court refer decision of HP Admn Vs Omprakash (1972) 1

SCC, 249 and held ”There is a clear distinction between the conduct of

a person against whom an offence is alleged, which is admissible u/s 8

of the Evidence Act, if such conduct is influenced by any fact in issue or


relevant fact and the statement made to a police officer in the course

of an investigation which is hit by sec 162 Cr.P.C. what is excluded by

sec 162 Cr.P.C is the statement made to a police officer in course of

investigation and not the evidence relating to the conduct of an

accused person (not amounting to a statement) when confronted or

questioned by a police officer during the course of an investigation. For

example, the evidence of the circumstances, simplicitier, that an

accused person led a police officer and pointed out the place where

stolen articles or weapon which might have been used in the

commission of the offence were found hidden, would be admissible as

conduct u/s 8 of the Evidence Act, irrespective of whether any

statement by the accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to

such conduct falls within the purview of section 27 of Evidence Act”.

Decision of the Privy council in ‘PulukuriKottaya& ors Vs Emperor, AIR

1947 PC 67 is the most authority for supporting the interpretation that

the “fact discovered” envisaged in the section embraces the place from

which the object was produced the knowledge of the accused to it, but

the information given must relate distinctly to that effect. But if a

relevant fact is discovered in consequences of such information, it

furnishes assurance regarding the truth of such information’.

86. In Umesh Karmakar & ANR Vs State of Assam, 2005 (1) GLT, 358,

“Accused person led police to the bamboo groove for discovery and

seizure of the weapon of assault and discovery of fact u/s 27 of

Evidence Act.”

87. Upon scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, more particularly

from the testimonies of PW-2, PW-4 to PW-7, who are neutral and

independent witnesses having no dispute with the accused or his

family stated only one aspect specifically, categorically, firmly in a

lucid manner without any biasness and honestly stated that during

questioning of accused by them with village headman (since deceased)

before them that accused stated he had committed the murder of

Lankeswar, then cut his body in pieces, put in bag and then buried


beneath the earth. During vigorous lengthy cross examination of PW-1,

PW-2, PW4 to PW-7 there is no trace of use of coercion, force, threat,

inducement, promise made to accused to extract confession from the

accused by the villager and it is accused free and voluntary statement

made before the villager. Under such circumstances when they stated

accused confessed his guilty before them, that too, without any force,

threat, promise, inducement, coercion the same pass the test of

section 24 of the Evidence Act and therefore the extra judicial

confession of the accused is reliable and this extra judicial confession

of the accused made before PW-2, PW-4, PW-6 and PW-7 who are

independent, unbiased witnesses of the case, the extra judicial

confession of the accused is admissible piece of evidence under the

settled position of law and can be acted upon safely. Accordingly

coupled with the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, I find

that in the case in hand extra judicial confession of accused can be

safely acted upon accordingly same is relied and acted upon and used

against the accused.

88. The statement of PW-1 and PW-5 revealed that accused

borrowed money from deceased and accused did not repay the same

for which there arose dispute between accused Charitra and deceased

and threatening is also given to deceased prior to the incident by his

son. PW-2 deposed when they question accused about Lankeswar,

accused gave them reply that he killed Lankeswar as Lankeswar

maintain illicit relationship with his wife. Either of the reason and both

the cause are the motive to commit the incident of murder by the

accused. Thus, show prosecution able to bring home the motive to

commit the incident of murder of Lankeswar by the accused Charitra.

CONCLUSION

89. Upon meticulous scrutiny of the evidence on record, the

following scenario comes up in the case in hand:-

i) Deceased Lankeswar went to village Sandha for rehearsal on

31/08/10;


ii) He return from Sandha after rehearsal on 02/09/10 at about 08-30

Pm;

iii) family member of deceased received one message from the hand

set of deceased “ he will not return to home and asked us not to think

about him and also peace us”;

iv) Lankeswar did not reach home till 03/09/10;

v) Family member of Lankeswar made search for Lankeswar but could

not find him till 07/09/10;

vi) Family member suspect accused Charitra and his family member’s

hand in the missing of Lankeswar as they find difference in the

statement of accused and his wife when asked for Lankeswar and

accused did not return money which he borrowed from deceased and

his son given threatening to deceased prior to the incident;

vii) PW-1 asked VDP member and village headman to question accused

Charitra and his family member about Lankeswar as he suspect their

hand in the missing of Lankeswar;

viii) PW-2, PW-4, Pw-6 are VDP personel and they stated they

accompanied by village headman (since deceased) went to the house

of accused Charitra as told by PW-1 and question accused Charitra

about Lankeswar and Lankeswar replied to them that he killed

Lankeswar and cut his body into pieces and buried the same;

ix) PW-7 deposed that village headman took him with other VDP

personel to the house of accused and they asked the accused and

accused replied that he kill Lankeswar and buried the dead body after

cutting the same;

x) PW-2 stated accused told them that as Lankeswar maintain illicit

relationship with his wife he killed him;


xi) Evidence of the PW-1 pointed he see deceased’s mobile in the

house of accused Charitra and also the said message. Police seized the

mobile in presence of witness PW-9;

xii) Village headman informed police about the incident and police

came and took accused Charitra and his wife to the police station;

xiii) in the next morning police again came along with accused and

accompanied by magistrate to the house of accused where accused

produced the weapon of offence dao to the police in presence of

witness PW-2, PW-8 and other;

xiv) thereafter, accused took police to the place where he dig the cut

pieces of the dead body of the deceased in three different place which

is back side of his house just 200 meters from his house and one place

is at a little distance from the other place and mutilated dead body of

the deceased recovered at the instance of the accused as shown by

him;

xv) on recovery of the head of the deceased, his elder brother PW-1

identified the dead body to be Lankeswar dead body;

xvi) Postmortem report pointed death caused 3 to 5 days prior to the

post mortem and this is a case of homicide and death is instantaneous

with the blow on the neck of the deceased;

xvii) recovery of the seizure mobile of the deceased in the house of

accused pointed deceased presence in the house of accused just prior

to his death;

xviii) recovery of the mutilated dead body of the deceased is at the

instance of the accused as per the statement of the accused connect

the accused with the murder of the deceased.

90. Here, from the aforesaid scenario that comes out from the

evidence on record goes to show that there is complete chain of


circumstances that goes against the accused which proved only guilty

of the accused. I find from the evidence on record that prosecution by

adducing sufficient cogent and convincing evidence fairly able to

establish the prosecution charge against the accused Charitra beyond

all reasonable doubt that except guilty of the accused no other aspect

comes in favour of the accused and I have come to my considerate

judicious finding that accused Charitra Haloi is found guilty of

committing the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder

which is punishable u/s-302 IPC and he after committing murder of

deceased Lankeswar cut the body into pieces and then buried the

same beneath the earth , disappear the dead body, to screen himself

from getting the punishment and accused committed the offence

punishable u/s-201 IPC. Accordingly, I hold accused Charitra Haloi of

guilty committing an offence punishable u/s-302/201 IPC and I convict

accused Charitra Haloi u/s 302/201 I.P.C. His bail stands cancelled.

89. The nature of the offence committed by the accused does not

fall within the ambit of section 360 Cr.P.C and under the provision of

Probation of Offender Act and accordingly accused Charitra Haloi is not

considered under the said provision of law.

HEARING OF THE ACCUSED ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE

90. I have heard accused on the point of sentence. Convicted

accused Charitra Haloi heard on the point of sentence and his plea of

sentence is reduced into writing in a separate sheet and keep with case

record. I heard Ld. defence counsel as well Ld. P.P for the state on the

point of sentence. Accused pleaded mercy and prays for considering

leniently.

91. Learned PP submit that this is the most brutal murder case and

rarest of rare incident in the district of Nalbari and prays for to impose

maximum sentence of capital punishment to the convicted accused.

92. Learned defence counsel submitted that accused has no past

antecedent and during the trial period there is no allegation brought by

the state against the accused. Accused regularly attend the court.


Accused is having 3 sons and prays to sentence the accused in

accordance with law considering the conduct of the accused during

trial.

93. Undoubtedly, this is the most brutal murder incident. Accused

first committed murder of the deceased Lankeswar then cut him into

pieces and buried the cut pieces under the ground to screen himself

from getting punishment. In this case prosecution failed to bring any

past history of criminal record of the accused. There is no past

antecedent. The mitigating circumstances appearing in the case is:

(i) No past history of criminal record.

(ii) Accused is an old person, having three sons.

(iii) During trial on bailant period no adverse remark against accused

adduced and produced by the prosecution against the accused.

Aggravating circumstances of the case.

(i) Deceased was defenseless at the time of incident.

(ii) Deceased was alone at the time of incident.

94. After hearing Ld. counsel for both sides and accused on the point

of sentence, going through the material on record and considering the

nature of the offence which convicted accused person Charitra has

committed and the fact of character maintain by the accused during

the period of whole trial, where in no adverse report submitted by the

prosecution against the accused Charitra Haloi and weighting the

mitigating and aggravating circumstances of the case, I find that

accused faced trial for almost 6 years and during the six years trial, it

is not comes out that his presence in the society is threatening to the

society and therefore aggravating circumstances of the case is not out

weight the mitigating circumstances and the case is not falling within

the category of rarest of rare one as per guidelines of Bachhan Singh

and Machhi Singh Case. Accordingly, taking into consideration whole

fact of the case, and general character of the accused during trial, I

sentenced accused Charitra Haloi to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment

for life and to pay fine of Rs. 15000/- (fifteen thousand) only i/d Simple

Imprisonment for 6 (six) months for committing offence u/s- 302 IPC

and I further sentenced accused Charitra Haloi to undergo Rigorous


Imprisonment for 3 (three) years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- (two

thousand) only i/d Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 (two) months for

committing offence u/s- 201 IPC. All the sentences will run

consecutively one after another.

ORDER

95. Accused Charitra Haloi is found guilty u/s-302/201 I.P.C and he is

sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of

Rs. 15000/- (fifteen thousand) only i/d Simple Imprisonment for 6 (six)

months for committing offence u/s- 302 IPC and I further sentenced

accused Charitra Haloi to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (three)

years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- (two thousand) only i/d Rigorous

Imprisonment for 2 (two) months for committing offence u/s- 201 IPC.

All the sentences will run consecutively one after another. The period

of detention already undergone by the convict accused shall be set off

against the period of imprisonment.

96. The convicted accused is told that he has right to appeal against

the judgment and order of this court before Hon’ble High court through

the jail authority or independently of his own. Convicted accused is

further informed that he is entitled free legal aid to prefer appeal

before the Hon’ble High court. Let furnish free copy of Judgment to

convicted accused persons.

97. Send copy of judgment to learned District Magistrate Nalbari u/s

365 Cr.P.C.

98. Seized goods be disposed of in accordance with law in due

course of time.

99. Considering the untimely death of deceased Lankeswar Talukdar

and failure of the state to protect his life the next kin of the deceased

entitled victim compensation under the victim compensation scheme.


100. Send copy of the judgment and order and necessary documents

to the learned secretary, DLSA, Nalbari for determination of the

quantum of compensation to be payable to next kin of the deceased.

101. Send back the GR case record to the learned committal Court

with a copy of the judgment.

Given under hand and seal of this Court on this 13th day of

August, 2019 at Nalbari, Dist- Nalbari.

(Smti S. Bhuyan) Session Judge, Nalbari Dictated and Corrected by me,

(Smti S. Bhuyan) Session Judge, Nalbari.

Typed by,Biswajit BhattacharjyaCopyist


APPENDIX

PROSECUTION WITNESS:-

PW-1 Bhaben Talukdar,

PW-2 Dipul Talukdar,

PW-3 Dr R Chaliha (MO),

PW-4 Harmohan Barman,

PW-5 Babul Talukdar,

PW-6 Bhupen Barman,

PW-7 Dipak Das,

PW-8 Dhiren Talukdar,

PW-9 Samsul Ali,

PW-10 Pulen Das (I/O).

PROSECUTION EXHIBITS:-

Ext-1 FIR,

Ext-2 seizure list,

Ext-3 statement of Dipul Talukdar u/s-164 CrPC,

Ext-4 post mortem report,

Ext-5 statement of Harmohan Barman u/s-164 CrPC,

Ext-6 statement of Bhupen Barman u/s-164 CrPC,

Ext-7, statement of Dipak Das u/s-164 CrPC,

Ext-8, Seizure list,

Ext-8 Sketch Map of the house of accused Charitra (P.O.),

Ext-9 Sketch Map of the place wherefrom the cut hands and legs were

recovered,

Ext-10, sketch map where from the cut body were recovered without

head, hand and legs,

Ext-11, Sketch map of the place where from head of deceased

recovered,

Ext-12, leading to discovery statement of accused for recovery of head,

Ext-13 leading to discovery statement of accused for recovery of cut

hands and legs,

Ext-14, leading to discovery statement for recovery of Trunk,

Ext-15 leading to discovery statement made by accused Charitra,

Ext-16(A) to Ext-16(G) inquest report,

Ext-17 charge sheet.


DEFENCE WITNESS :- NIL

DEFENCE EXHIBITS :- NIL

COURT WITNESS :- NIL

COURT EXHIBITS :- NIL

(Smti S. Bhuyan)Sessions Judge, Nalbari


heading of judgment in sessions case :: in the court of

Documents