Criminal Appeal No. 50 (J) of 2013. Case: Biren Goyari Vs State of Assam. Guwahati High Court

Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 50 (J) of 2013
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. R De, Learned Amicus Curiae, Adv. and For Respondent: Ms. Shamima Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
JudgesMr. Ajit Singh, C.J
IssueIndian Penal Code - Section 302; Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 161
Judgement DateSeptember 19, 2016
CourtGuwahati High Court


Mr. Ajit Singh, C.J

  1. The sole appellant Biren Gayari has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.

  2. The victim of the incident was Mohan Gayari, aged about 55 years. He was also younger brother of the appellant.

  3. According to the prosecution case, on 10.8.2011, around 12 noon, the appellant went to the house of Mohan Goyari and committed his murder by causing multiple injuries with a dagger. The house of Mohan Goyari was near to the house of appellant in village Napara. At the time of incident, wife Chimni Goyari (PW-1) of Mohan Goyari was working in the paddy field. Their children were also not at home. After the incident, the public had caught hold of the appellant and kept him tied. The public even beat the appellant. Chimni Goyari on receiving information about the incident, rushed from the paddy field to her house and saw injured dead body of Mohan Goyari. She then went to the Police Station Gobardhana and made the ejahar exhibit 4. Thereupon, the Investigating Officer -- Abu Bakkar Siddique (PW-12) seized the dagger from the spot. He also made the inquest report on the dead body in the presence of Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Salbari. Dr. Chakreswar Choudhury (PW-11) conducted the post mortem examination and found multiple penetrating and incised wounds on the dead body of Mohan Goyari. He opined that Mohan Goyari died due to multiple injuries caused to him and death was homicidal.

  4. During trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication.

  5. The trial court essentially relying upon the evidence of Pranita Boro (PW-2) as well as extra judicial confession of appellant convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.

  6. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, we are of the considered view that the appeal deserves to be allowed. Pranita Boro (PW-2) is related to appellant and Mohan Goyari both. The prosecution examined her as an eye witness. But she did not support its case and turned hostile. She in her evidence categorically denied having seen the appellant killing Mohan Goyari as she was in School at the time of incident. She also emphatically denied having...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT