Chandra Bonia vs State Of Assam

O R D E R

This

appeal

against

the

conviction has been filed against the concurrent findings

recorded by the trial court and the High Court for a double

murder committed on 7th October,1990 for which the appellant was

sentenced for life on two counts, both sentences to run

concurrently.

As per the prosecution story, Somra Munda and Agnash Munda,

the father and brother of the first informant were murdered

during the night of 7th October, 1990 in their house. The First

2

Information Report was lodged by Chukhnu Munda at Police Station

Marian on the 8th October, 1990 alleging that during his absence

from the house some persons had murdered his father and younger

brother. During the course of the investigation, the police

recorded the statement of various witnesses including PW 1 Pradip

Das and PW 2 Niran Bonia (who were both declared hostile), PW 5,

the Medical Officer who had conducted the post mortem on the two

dead bodies, PW 6 the informant and PW 7 Baloni Bawri, who was a

neighbour

of the

deceased,

and to

whom the

accused

had made

an extra

judicial

confession on the date of the murder itself and PW 12 the

Investigating Officer who was also a witness to the recovery of

the murder weapon at the instance of the accused. The trial

court and the High Court have both noticed that as the solitary

eye witness had died and the other two material witnesses PW 1

and PW 2 had been declared hostile, the prosecution story rested

exclusively on the confession made by the accused to PW 7 and the

factum of recovery of the dao at the instance of the accused

3

before PW 12 the Investigating Officer.

At the hearing before us today, Mr. Praneet Ranjan, the

learned Amicus Curiae for the accused - appellant has argued that

the only evidence against the accused was the extra judicial

confession made before PW 7 and as this evidence was a weak kind

of evidence, the conviction of the appellant could not be

maintained. He has further submitted that police had, in fact,

used third degree methods and tortured and threatened the

witnesses

to give

false

evidence

and as

such the

case

against

the

appellant

appeared to be a concocted one.

Mr. Avijit Roy, the learned counsel for the State of Assam,

however, has supported the judgments of the courts below.

It is true that an extra judicial confession is a very weak

piece of evidence and ordinarily a conviction solely on the basis

of such evidence cannot be maintained. The confession, made by

the appellant to PW 7, however, falls in a different category. A

4

reading of the evidence of PW 7 clearly reveals that her house

was about 100 yards away from the murder site and that when she

had come out from her house to throw the starch out of the cooked

rice, she had seen three persons running away from the house of

the deceased and that a little later, the appellant - accused had

come to her house carrying a dao and addressing her as Didi had

told her that he had murdered two persons and cautioned her not

to disclose this fact to anybody otherwise she too would be

killed,

and on

account

of fear,

she and

her

husband

had left

their

residence

and shifted to some other place. We also see that the statement

of PW 7 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C is almost in identical

terms. It is therefore evident that the extra judicial

confession was made in a different background in as much that as

the appellant suspected that he had been identified by the

witness he had returned to warn her not to divulge any

information to anyone. The very proximity of the murder and the

5

extra judicial confession made to PW 7 speaks volumes as to its

authenticity. We also see from the record that the alleged

murder weapon, a dao, had been recovered at the instance of the

appellant. It is true that the independent witnesses of the

recovery have not supported the prosecution, but we have no

reason to doubt the evidence of PW 12 on this score.

On an overall assessment of the facts the prosecution

story is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

We

thus find

no merit

in this

appeal

and the

same is

dismissed.

The fee of the Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs.7000/-.

........................J (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

.......................J (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

6

NEW DELHI MARCH 30, 2011

7