ABDUL HALIM Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant had been charged under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and was found guilty by the Sessions Judge, Aijal, Mizo Hills, of the offence under Section 304, Indian Penal Code on the ground that although apparently he committed the offence of murder, as he must he deemed to have acted on the heat of the moment while temporarily deprived of self -control his acts fell within one of the exceptions to Section 300, Indian Penal Code and therefore the accused must be deemed to have committed the offence under Section 304 . Accordingly the learned Sessions Judge sentenced him to two years rigorous imprisonment. Hence the appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution case briefly is that on the night of the occurrence, that is 7 -5 -61, at about 8 -30 P.M., there was a quarrel between the accused Abdul Halim and the two deceased persons Tajibur Rahman alias Taju Mia and Lalu Mia, in the course of which the accused is said to have stabbed the two deceased persons and caused their death. It is the case of the prosecution that as many as four persons, namely, Nripendra Kumar Deb (P.W. 16), N. Burman (P.W. 2), Lala (P.W. 10) and one Mizo girl, were inside the house of the accused playing cards. Some one knocked at the door from outside but the door was not opened. The persons who were outside and knocked at the door used abusive filthy language. Therefore P.W. 18 (Nripendra) opened the door arid went away, and the two persons, the deceased Lalumia and Taju Mia, entered the house by force.

(3.) THE question that has to be determined is whether this circumstantial evidence sufficiently established the guilt of the accused in this case beyond reasonable doubt and that the circumstantial evidence satisfied the requirements of proof applicable to circumstantial evidence. It may be stated that when a case rests purely on a circumstantial evidence, the evidence must not only establish that a crime has been committed but it should also establish that it was the accused that in all probability has committed the crime and should also at the same time exclude the possibility of any other conclusion. Applying these tests I am not satisfied that the circumstantial evidence in this case can be said to have established the guilt of the accused.