IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, KAMRUP (METRO), AT GUWAHATI

PRESENT: SRI A.BORTHAKUR, Sessions Judge,

Kamrup(M), Guwahati.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 222 (K) 0F 2010Under Section 364/302/201 IPC

(Arising out of G.R. Case No 5396/2009)

State of Assam

- VS-

Sri Shital Das, Son of Late Jatin Chandra DasVillage Haripur,P.S. AbhyapuriDistrict-Bongaigaon(Assam) ……. Accused

A P P E A R A N C E

For the State … Mr. Rohini Kumar Das, Sr. Advocate & Special Public Prosecutor.

For the accused … Syed I. Rasul, Sr. Advocate.Assisted byMr N.Uddin,

Mr.G.sorowar, Mr. N.Islam, Mr.M.Hussain, Advocates.

Date of charge … 09.07.2010 Date of evidence … 05.03.2011, 25.04.2011,

02.06.2011 05.09.2011, 09.05.2012, 10.08.2012 08.10.2012, 14.03.2013, 29.11.2013 17.01.2014, 22.04.2014 &

24.06.2014

1

Date of argument … 15.05.2015, 08.06.2015, 19.06.2015 and 03.07.2015

Date of judgment … 30.07.2015.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

1. The accused has been charged with abduction of the

deceased woman for murder and disappearance of evidence of murder.

There was no eye witness. All alleged circumstantial evidence disproved.

The foundation of the whole prosecution case rests on suspicion and

conjectures.

PROSECUTION CASE:

2. Sri Chitta Ranjan Barai, a resident of Kashinagar,

Bishnupur main road, under Bharalumukh Police Station, lodged a

missing information, on 01.06.2009, at 06.15 P.M. before the Officer In-

charge of Bharalumukh Police Station, to the effect that his daughter

Prativa Barai, who was a teacher of Milky Way Public School, situated at

Bishnupur, Guwahati, went to School, on 29.05.2009, Friday, at 8 A.M.

She told them that she was going to Delhi with the owner of the School

Aradhana Medhi. On Friday, the security guard of the school, Sri Pratul

Barman told his wife that he accompanied his daughter Prativa to leave

her at the Airport, at around 10.30 A.M. When they enquired from him,

on Sunday at about 11.30 A.M. about her whereabouts, he refused to

give any reply. On that day at about 12.30 P.M., he went to the school to

enquire about Prativa, but found Aradhana Medhi, aforementioned, at

the school campus and when he approached her to enquire her about

the whereabouts of Prativa, she replied that she did not know anything

about her. His daughter transmitted a message, on 01.06.2009, Monday,

at 03.04 A.M., informing that she was with one Amit Saikia, a resident of

Guwahati, at Jorhat. At the relevant time, Prativa was aged about 29

years.

2

3. The above missing information was entered in the General

Diary of Bharalumukh Police Station, vide G.D.E. No. 09, dated

01.06.2009 at 6.15 P.M. Thereafter, on 08.06.2009, the said Chitta

Ranjan Barai lodged another F.I.R., before the Officer In-charge of the

same Police Station, with reference to the missing information,

aforementioned, that on 06.06.2009, he received a hand written letter

from one Amit Saikia of Ulubari, and as such, it was suspected that

Prativa was kidnapped and after fulfilling desire, she might have been

murdered. The aforesaid F.I.R. was registered as Bharalumukh P.S. Case

No. 163 of 2009 U/S 366 IPC, dated 08.06.2009.

4. It is pertinent to be mentioned that meanwhile, Kelvin

Rabha and 2(two) others, residents of village Bhojkhuli, under Goalpara

Police Station lodged an FIR, on 01.06.2009, before the Officer In-charge

of Goalpara Police Station informing that on 01.06.2009 at about 9 A.M.,

some members of Bhojkhuli Gaon Mahila Sammittee informed them that

they noticed a newly dug trance at Rakhyasini Reserve, village -

Dosrapara Rubber Bagan and thereupon, they inspected the trance. On

inspection, they smelt foul odour emanating from the trance. On receipt

of the information, a police party went to the place and with the help of

the local public when dug the trance a little, they noticed some part of

the deadbody of a human being .Thereafter, the corpse of an woman

with burn injury was disinterred, in presence of an Executive Magistrate.

It was suspected that some unknown culprits burnt to death of the

woman and then buried at the place. The said F.I.R. was registered as

Goalpara P.S. Case No. 174/2009 U/S 302/201 IPC, dated 01.06.2009.

The Additional District Magistrate, Sri Rohini Kumar Choudhury of

Goalpara District prepared the inquest report ,in presence of witnesses

and then the Investigating Officer S.I. Pawan Kalita sent the said

unidentified deadbody to Goalpara Civil Hospital for postmortem

examination and further, seized one ‘dao’ which was found lying near

the burial place . Thereafter, S.I. Pawan Kalita, the I.O, as per order of

the District Magistrate, Goalpara disposed off the dead body, on

3

04.06.2009, after keeping at the morgue of Goalpara Civil Hospital for 72

hours, as an unidentified and unclaimed female deadbody.

5. On 28.06.2009, S.I. Binoy Kalita, the I.O. of Bharalumukh

P.S. Case No. 163/2009, which was registered on the basis of an FIR,

dated 08.06.2009, lodged by Chitta Ranjan Barai, arrested the accused

Shital Das from Bongaigaon and took him to Goalpara via Bharalumukh

P.S. for investigation. Then, on being led by the accused Shital Das, S.I.

Binay Kalita, the I.O., recovered some belongings of the deceased

Prativa, which were identified by her brother from the burial place. The

I.O. collected one human femur bone for DNA test at the Forensic

Science Laboratory (FSL), Assam. On completion of investigation, the

I.O. submitted the charge-sheet U/S 366/302/201 IPC against the

accused Shital Das, on 06.01.2010 before the Court of learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), at Guwahati.

TRIAL:

6. Since the charge-sheeted offences U/S 366/302/201 IPC

are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, after complying with the

necessary formalities U/S 207 and 209 Cr.P.C, committed the case to this

Court of Sessions for trial vide order, dated 22.06.2010, passed in G.R.

Case No. 5396/ 2009.

7. On scrutiny of the prima-facie evidence placed before this

court and hearing the learned counsel of both the sides, one of my

learned predecessors framed formal charges U/S 366/302/201 IPC

against the accused vide order, dated 09.07.2011. The charges were

read-over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty

and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, by order, dated 30.07.2015, the

charge u/s 366 I.P.C. was altered to Section 364 I.P.C. and read over to

the accused to which he pleaded not guilty. Both sides declined to re-

examine and further cross-examine the P.Ws, who have already been

examined in this case.

4

8. In order to prove the above charges, the prosecution has

examined as many as 21(twenty one) witnesses, while the defence

cross-examined 17 (seventeen) witnesses out of them.

9. After closing the evidence of the prosecution side, the

statement of the accused was recorded U/S 313 Cr.P.C. by my learned

predecessor vide order, dated 16.07.2014. The accused pleaded not

guilty and declined to examine any witness in defence.

10. I have heard the oral arguments, advanced by Mr. R.K.

Das, learned Sr. Advocate and Special Public Prosecutor and Mr. N.

Uddin, learned counsel for the accused. I have also gone through the

written arguments, submitted by both the sides and have gone through

the entire evidence proferred by the prosecution and further, the

statement of the accused, recorded U/S 313 Cr.P.C.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:

11. From the evidence on record, and on the basis of oral

submissions of the learned counsel for both the sides, the following

points emerged for determination.

(i) Whether the accused, on 29.05.2009 at about 8

A.M., at Bishnupur, under Bharalumukh P.S.,

Guwahati abducted Prativa Barai in order to

murder her?

(ii) Whether the accused, on or about 01.06.2009, at

village Rakhyashini Reserve, Dosrapara Rubber

Bagan, under Goalpara P.S., District Goalpara,

committed murder by causing the death of Prativa

Barai? and

(iii) Whether the accused on or about 01.06.2009, at

village Rakhyasini Reserve, Dosrapara Rubber

Bagan, under Goalpara P.S., District Goalpara,

intentionally caused disappearance of evidence of

murder, burying the dead body of Prativa Barai?

5

THE DECISION AND THE REASONS THEREFOR:Legal positions:[Sections 364/302/201 I.P.C.]

12. To bring home an offence u/s 364 I.P.C., the prosecution

must prove (i) that the accused kidnapped or abducted any person; (ii)

that such kidnapping or abduction was committed so that (a) such

person may be committed; or (b) be put in a danger of being murdered.

13. On the other hand, ‘Homicide’ means the killing of human

being by a human being. A person committed culpable homicide if the act

by which death is caused is done with the (a) intention of causing death,

or (b) intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,

or (c) knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. ’Intent’ and

‘Knowledge’ in the ingredients of Section 299 of IPC postulate the

existence of positive mental attitude and this mental condition is the

special mens rea necessary for the offence.

14. The offence of’ murder’ has been defined in Section 300

IPC. The basic difference between the ‘culpable homicide’ and ‘murder’

lies in the degree of the gravity of offence. In order to bring home the

offence within the parameter of Section 300 IPC, the prosecution must

establish that the assailant had the definite intention to cause death of

the deceased or that the offender had knowledge that the wounds which

he is inflicting would be sufficient to cause the death or that the same

will be dangerous to human life. Therefore, the essential ingredients of

the offence have to be deduced and inferred from a series of facts, like

weapon used in the crime, nature of the wound, situs of the wound and

other attending circumstances. The burden lies on the prosecution to

establish that the act alleged to constitute the offence of ‘murder’ was

really the act of a person other than the deceased and at the same time,

the onus of proving Exceptions to Section 300 of IPC, so as to reduce the

offence of murder to one of ‘culpable homicide’ not amounting to

‘murder’ lies on the accused.

15. Further, in order to bring home an offence U/S 201 IPC,

the prosecution has to prove (i) that an offence has been committed; (ii)

that the accused knew or had reason to believe the commission of such

6

offence; (iii) that with such knowledge or belief he (a) caused any

evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear; or (b) gave any

information believed to be false; and (iv) that he did so as aforesaid with

the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment.

16. The above offences are being interwined, they are taken

together for consideration.

17. Now, in the context of the above requirements of facts to

be proved, let us look at the evidence, on record.

EVIDENCE:

18. P.W.-1 Chitta Ranjan Barai is the informant and father of

the deceased Prativa Barai. His evidence is that on 29.05.2009, at about

8 A.M., Prativa Barai went out to attend classes at Milky Way English

Medium High School and at the time of her departure, she told him that

she would go to Delhi along with Aradhana Medhi. At around 10 A.M.,

the chowkider Pratul Barman came to their house and reported to his

wife Mina Barai stating that he dropped Prativa Barai and Aradhana

Medhi at the Airport. On 31.05.2009, he met the chowkider Pratul

Barman and enquired from him about Prativa. Pratul assured him stating

that she will come back on time. After about 2½ hours, he saw the

vehicle of Aradhana Medhi entering into the school compound. He

enquired from Aradhana whereabout of his daughter Prativa. Aradhana

replied that she had never left for Delhi. Later on, he again met

Aradhana and asked her as to when his daughter will come back,

whereupon she replied that Prativa will definitely return. Aradhana called

the chowkider Pratul Barman to know the fact. Thereafter, at around

4.30 A.M., one message was received from the cell phone of Prativa

stating that she was safe and was staying with one Amit Saikia at Jorhat.

After the message was received, the cell phone was found in switch off

mode. On 01.06.2009, he filed a missing entry vide Ext.-1 at

Bharalumukh P.S. On 06.06.2009, he received a letter by speed post

from Amit Saikia, wherein he assured to get marry Prativa by the month

of December and it was further informed that Prativa was working in

7

Samplin Company at Jorhat. Immediately, he proceeded to Jorhat in

search of Prativa and found her untraced. On 08.06.2009, he lodged an

F.I.R., vide Ext.-2, with Bharalumukh P.S. suspecting commission of

murder of Prativa Barai. He has recognized, M. Ext.-1, the seized letter

with envelope. He came to know from police that Prativa had been

staying with Shital Das, who was also working as a teacher in the school,

where Prativa was working. Police informed him that Shital Das was

arrested from Bongaigaon and taken to the Police Station. He was

informed by the police that the accused Shital Das had made a

confession admitting his guilt of causing death to Prativa taking her to

Goalpara. Police of Goalpara handed over to him film negative and he

developed the negative and confirmed the photos as belonged to his

daughter Prativa. One month before the incident of missing of Prativa,

his wife Mina Barai stated before him that the accused proposed to

marry Prativa as stated by her. He was told by his son Chandan Barai

that police showed him some vanity bag, wrist watch and some pieces of

cloths stating that the articles were found along with the deadbody.

19. In cross-examination, he has, interalia, stated that the

message was received by his younger daughter Papori Barai. The missing

entry was filed after receiving the message from Prativa. Receiving the

letter from one Amit Saikia, he suspected that Prativa was no longer

alive. He did not visit Jorhat P.S. in search of Prativa. On 25.06.2009, S.I.

Binay Kalita reported him that Prativa was staying with Shital Das. Police

examined him on 01.06.2009 and on subsequent occasions. On

03.06.2009, Shital Das came to their house and on charge of taking

away Prativa, he did not make any reply.

20. P.W.-2 Mina Barai is the mother of Prativa Barai, the

deceased. Her version is that on 29.05.2009, at around 8 A.M., her

daughter Prativa came out from house, intending to proceed to Delhi and

since then she did not return. They searched for Prativa, but found her

untraced. Chowkider Pratul Barman assured that Prativa would return

within a short time. They went to Milky Way Public School, where Prativa

was working and met the Principal to enquire about her. The Principal

8

denied to have gone with Prativa to Delhi. One message was transmitted

from the cell phone of Prativa to the cell phone of her son Kripa Kumar

Barai. She does not remember the content of the said message. On the

following day, morning, the Principal and chowkider visited their house to

enquire whether they got any information about Prativa. She was told by

the chowkider that the accused Shital Das offered money to him to

transmit a message that Prativa had been proceeding to Delhi along with

Aradhana. The teachers also disclosed to them that Shital Das regularly

visited and met Prativa and she might have gone with Shital Das. She

was told by Prativa, on an earlier occasion that the accused Shital Das

proposed to marry Prativa, but she was not willing to give her consent in

performing her marriage with Shital Das. They suspected the accused’s

involvement in abduction of Prativa. At the relevant time, since the

accused Shital Das was staying at Bongaigaon, her son and relatives

went to Bongaigaon in search of her daughter, but they came to know

that Shital Das was availing leave. Subsequently, they heard that the

dead body of Prativa was recovered from a jungle at Goalpara and some

articles belonged to Prativa were also recovered. In cross-examination,

she, interalia, stated that on 03.06.2009, the accused Shital Das came to

their house. The message was received from the cell phone of Prativa,

but she could not recollect, who was the sender of the message. She

believed that the message was sent by Prativa. Before the incident of

missing of Prativa, the accused Shital Das visited their house

occasionally. She cannot recollect when for the last time, the accused

visited their house.

21. P.W.-3 Kelvin Rabha is a resident of Goalpara. His

evidence is that on a day, in the year 2009, the members of the Mahila

Sammittee seeing a trance at Dosorapara Rubber Garden owned by the

Sammittee called him and Pabitra Rabha and others. They went to the

place and smelt foul odour emanating from the trance. They informed

the incident to the police. The police came and disinterred a female dead

body from the trance, in presence of a Magistrate and others. The

Magistrate conducted inquest on the dead body. He has recognized Ext.-

9

4, the inquest report, where Ext.-4(1) is his signature. Himself, Pabitra

and Nareswar Rabha collectively lodged an F.I.R. with the Goalpara

Police Station. He has recognized Ext.-5, the F.I.R., where Ext.-5(1) is his

signature. Police examined him and seized one ‘dao’, M. Ext.-2, which

was found lying near the trance, by Ext.-6, the seizure memo.

22. P.W.-4 Bihuti Rabha is a resident of Goalpara. According

to her, on a day, in the year 2009, she and other members of the local

Mahila Sammittee found a trance in the rubber garden situated at

Rakhyasini, wherefrom foul odour emanated. They informed the matter

to Kelvin Rabha, Nareswar Rabha and Pabitra Rabha, who in turn,

informed the police. Police disinterred a female deadbody from the

trance and seized a ‘dao’, which was found lying near the said trance.

The Magistrate prepared the inquest report on the body of the deceased.

23. P.W.-5 Haripriya Rabha is a resident of Goalpara. Her

evidence is that, on a day, in the year 2009, she and other members of

the local Mahila Sammittee found a trance in the rubber garden in the

reserve area at Rakhyasini, wherefrom foul odour emanated. They

informed the matter to Kelvin Rabha, Nareswar Rabha and Pabitra

Rabha, who in turned informed the police. Police disinterred a female

dead body from the trance and seized a ‘dao’, which was found lying

near the trance. The Magistrate prepared the inquest report on the body

of the deceased. She has recognized Ext.-4, the inquest report, wherein

Ext.-4(2) is her signature. In cross-examination, she has stated that she

put her signature on the inquest report at Goalpara Police Station.

24. P.W.-6 Nijara Rabha is a resident of Goalpara and a

Member of Pragati Mahila Sammittee. According to her, on a day, about

2 years ago, while they were discharging duty in their rubber garden,

they noticed a trance within the garden area and informed the matter to

Kelvin Rabha, Nareswar Rabha and Pabitra Rabha and they informed the

matter to the police. Police disinterred a female dead body from the

trance and took away the same.

25. P.W.-7 Chandan Barai is the brother of Prativa Barai, the

deceased. His version is that Prativa was working as teacher in Milky

10

Way Public School. On 28.05.2009, Prativa told them that on 29.05.2009,

she was going to Delhi along with Aradhana Medhi. On 29.05.2009, at

about 8 A.M., Prativa went out of home to the school assuring to return

by 31.05.2009. In his presence, his father Chitta Ranjan Barai gave

Rs.500/- to Prativa. On the very day, Putul Barman visited their house.

His mother Mina Barai told him that Putul Barman told her that Madam

Aradhana safely reached the Airport. On 31.05.2009, his father went to

Milky Way Public School. On the night of that day, his father told him

that Prativa reached safely. He was further told by his father that

Aradhana Medhi denied to have accompanied Prativa to Delhi. On

01.06.2009, his father lodged a missing entry at Bharalumukh P.S. On

06.06.2009, one letter was delivered by courier service purportedly

written by one Amit Saikia, addressed to their father Chitta Ranjan Barai.

On 25.06.2009, SSP Debajit sir informed at Bharalumukh P.S. that

Prativa was staying with Shital Das. On 26.06.2009, they accompanied

by police of Bharalumukh P.S. went to the Office of the National

Insurance Company at Bongaigaon and arrested the accused. The

accused was brought to Guwahati. On 28.06.2009, the police informed

them that the accused Shital Das, after committing the murder of

Prativa, buried the dead body in the forest area of Rakhyasini at

Goalpara. On 28.06.2009, he went to Goalpara, accompanied by the

police. The O.C. Goalpara P.S. told them that on 01.06.2009, one

unidentified female dead body was recovered by them. Afterwards, Shital

Das led them to a place, where there was a hut. At the distance of about

15/20 meters from the hut, one trance was seen. Police recovered one

ladies hand bag, M. Ext.-3, from the underneath of a culvert, on their

way back, on being shown by the accused Shital Das. Inside the bag,

they found one surider M. Ext.-4 and M. Ext.-5, dupatta and also one

wrist watch M. Ext.-6. He identified the articles as belonged to his sister

Prativa. Police seized the articles by Ext.-7, the seizure memo. In cross-

examination, he has, interalia, stated that himself and Atul Rajbangshi

accompanied by the police of Bharalumukh Police Station went to

Goalpara. He put his signature at the place of occurrence. He denied the

11

defence suggestion that the articles are recovered by police of Goalpara

much earlier and those were kept at the police station ‘malkhana’ and

thereafter, seizure list was prepared and his signature was obtained

thereon at Goalpara P.S. He denied the defence suggestion that the

ladies bag was not seized on being shown by the accused Shital Das

from underneath the culvert. He further denied the defence suggestion

that the ladies bag was recovered from the water.

26. P.W.-8 Atul Rajbangshi is a tenant for about 10 years

under Chitta Ranjan Barai, the father of the victim Prativa Barai. His

version is that on 29.05.2009, at about 8 A.M., while he was standing at

the doorstep of his house, he saw Prativa stepping out of her house. At

that time, Prativa was wearing a blue coloured saree, one gold neckless,

gold ear rings and gold bangles. She was supposed to return on

31.05.2009. On 29.05.2009, he took a Vodafone sim card. Before using

the said Vodafone sim card by him, Prativa wanted to use the said sim

card, bearing no. 97061-24495. When on 31.05.2009, Prativa did not

return home, on 01.06.2009, her father Chitta Ranjan Barai filed an

F.I.R. Thereafter, on 26.06.2009, Chandan Barai met him with a request

to accompany him to Bangaigaon to facilitate the police to arrest the

accused Shital Das. Accordingly, S.I. Binay Kalita of Bharalumukh P.S.

accompanied by him, Chandan Barai and other police personnel went to

Bongaigaon. He showed the accused Shital Das at the Office of the

National Insurance Company and thereafter, brought him to

Bharalumukh P.S. At about 11 P.M., they left Bharalumukh P.S. for

home. On 28.06.2009, Chandan Barai again met him and requested to

accompany to Goalpara. Accordingly, he accompanied SI Binay Kalita of

Bharalumukh P.S., Chandan Barai and other police personnel to Goalpara

P.S. At Goalpara P.S., SI Binay Kalita enquired from the Officer In-

charge, whether any deadbody was found, to which the Officer In-charge

informed him that a dead body was found, on 01.06.2009, at a distance

of about 3 kms from the Railway Station at a rubber garden at

Rakhyasini Hill and that the said deadbody was disposed off, after

keeping for about 48 hours, taking a photograph thereof. The Officer

12

showed the photograph of the deadbody and Chandan Barai identified

the photograph as that of his sister Prativa Barai. Chandan Barai

identified the deadbody on the basis of complexion and a piece of cloth.

The accused Shital Das led them to the rubber garden along with the

Officer In-charge of Goalpara P.S. There was one hut in the rubber

garden. At the said hut, both the accused and Prativa Barai talked. The

accused Shital Das confessed before them that he mixed 6(six)

intoxicating tablets with curd and administered to Prativa. Thereafter, as

the accused Shital Das confessed that he killed her gagging her mouth

and nose. The confession of the accused was video graphed in the

mobile phone of Chandan Barai. Thereafter, Shital Das left the deadbody

of Prativa at the hut and dug a trance at a distance of about 15/20

meters, from the said hut using the spade and ‘dao’ which were found at

the hut. Shital Das further confessed that after laying the deadbody of

Prativa at the trance, he put cloths thereon and set on fire. Then he put

soil at the trance and left the rubber garden. He then threw off the ladies

bag of Prativa at a culvert, situated about ½ km from the place. Based

on the confession made before them by the accused Shital Das, SI Binay

Kalita asked the accompanying Havilder to pick up the bag from the

place. SI Binay Kalita opened the bag in front of them and found one

surider, urna and one golden ladies wrist watch. Chandan Barai identified

those articles as belonged to his sister Prativa Barai. Those articles were

seized by Ext.-7, the seizure memo, wherein Ext.-7(2) is his signature. In

cross-examination, he has, interalia, stated that after interrogation,

police did not record his statement. His statements were recorded

by Bharalumukh P.S. on 26.06.2009 and on 28.06.2009 by Goalpara P.S.

He denied the defence suggestion that he did not state in his statement

given before the police that the accused Shital Das led them to the place

of occurrence. They did not proceed to the rubber garden by the road,

on which there was the culvert. He denied the defence suggestion that

he has exaggerated his statement stating that he put his signature on

the seizure memo near the culvert. He further denied the defence

13

suggestion that he did not state the facts narrated before the court,

while giving his statement before the police.

27. P.W.-9 Kripa Barai is the brother of the deceased Prativa

Barai. His evidence is that on the night of 28.05.2009, his sister Prativa

told him that she was going to Delhi on 29.05.2009. On 29.05.2009,

morning, she left home. After returning from office, their mother told him

that Prativa did not make any call from Delhi and then at about 10 A.M.,

Pratul Barman came to their house and informed that Prativa and the

Madam of her school were dropped at the Airport. His sister did not

return. On 31.05.2009, his father went to the school, where Prativa

worked and came to know that Madam did not accompany his sister

Prativa. On that day, at about 2.30/3 P.M., he received a message on his

cell phone, informing that his sister was with one Amit Saikia at Jorhat

and working at MNC Company. Messages continued to be received till

06.06.2009, but whereabouts of Prativa could not be traced. On

01.06.2009, his father filed a missing complaint at Bharalumukh P.S. On

06.06.2009, a letter was received from Amit Saikia. On 07.07.2009, his

father filed an F.I.R. at Bharalumukh P.S., suspecting abduction of

Prativa. On 25.06.2009, the police of Bharalumukh P.S. called his father

and accordingly, his father along with him went to Bharalumukh P.S. The

police showed two telephone call lists and told them that his sister’s cell

phone was used till 29.05.2009 and further, that from 31.05.2009 to

06.06.2009, though the sim card remained the same, the handset was

changed. The police came to know that the replaced hand set belonged

to the accused Shital Das. The police told his father that his sister was

staying with the accused Shital Das and as such, he should be arrested.

The police requested his father to arrange a vehicle to proceed to

Bongaigaon on the following day, to arrest the accused. On 26.06.2009,

his brother Chandan Barai and tenant Atul Rajbangshi accompanied by

the police of Bharalumukh P.S. went to Bangaigaon and brought Shital

Das under arrest. On 26.06.2009, at about 11.30 P.M., they went to

Bharalumukh P.S. Police seized two cell phone handsets, M. Ext.-7, from

the accused Shital Das by Ext.-8, the seizure memo. In cross-

14

examination he has, interalia, stated that he does not know from whose

mobile handset the messages were transmited to his mobile handset. No

sim card was found in the seized mobile handsets.

28. P.W.-10 Ratna Choudhury is a colleague teacher of the

deceased Prativa Barai in Milky Way Public School, situated at Bishnupur,

Guwahati. Her version is that the accused Shital Das was also working as

teacher in that school. On 29.05.2009, at 12 P.M., the result of the HSLC

examination was announced and they were enjoying. At about 1.30 P.M.,

she left the school. Prativa also left the school. She came to know that

Prativa had love affairs with the accused Shital Das and their love affairs

was known to everybody of their school. On 31.05.2009, the Head

Mistress called them to the school. The Head Mistress told them that

Prativa was missing. She went with their teaching staff members to the

house of Prativa. On enquiry of the family members of Prativa, she told

that she saw her only on 29.05.2009, when she left the school. They also

told them that Prativa might had gone with Shital Das. Their students

told that they saw Prativa along with Shital Das in the market. In cross-

examination she has, interalia, stated that when Prativa joined their

school, Shital Das was there and after three months of joining Shital Das

left their school. Prativa used to talk with the accused over telephone.

She did not state before the police that Prativa used talk with the

accused Shital Das over phone. She could not say the name of the

student, who saw the accused along with Prativa in the market.

29. P.W.-11 Aradhana Medhi is the Head Mistress of Milky

Way Public School. Her evidence is that Prativa Barai was working as a

teacher during the period 2006 till the date of occurrence. The

occurrence took place in the month of May, 2009. Since Prativa was

irregular in school, she was told to be regular. In the month of May, she

asked for leave. On 28.05.2009 and 29.05.2009, she had been on leave.

On 30.05.2009, Prativa’s father came to the school and enquired from

her, whether Prativa went with her, to which she replied that she did not

accompany her. He then left their school. On Tuesday, they went to the

house of Prativa. They suspected that Prativa might had gone with the

15

accused. The love affairs between the accused and Prativa was known to

all of their school. The accused Shital Das, who was working as a

teacher, left their school in the year 2006.

30. P.W.-12 Jitendra Kumar Singh is a teacher of Milky Way

Public School. His evidence is that on the date of occurrence at 1 P.M.,

Prativa left the school obtaining leave from their Principal. He did not

know where she had gone. Prativa used to talk over phone with some

body else, who was not known to him. He heard from the students that

Prativa had love affairs with Shital Das. He had no occasion to meet the

accused Shital Das.

31. P.W.-13 Bitul Kalita is a seizure witness. He has

recognized his signature Ext.-3(2) on the seizure memo Ext.-3 at

Bharalumukh P.S. by which the police seized the letter M. Ext.-1. He has

stated that he does not know as to from which place M. Ext.-1 was

collected by the Investigating Agency.

32. P.W.-14 Pratul Barman is the chowkider of Milky Way

Public School, situated at Bishnupur, Guwahati. His evidence is that on

the date of occurrence, HSLC final examination result was declared. On

that day, the deceased Prativa Barai, who was the teacher of the said

school, also came to the school. She left the school with request to him

to inform her mother that she was leaving for a temple. Accordingly, he

informed her mother at her home. When he returned to the school, after

informing the mother of Prativa, he came across Prativa at the school.

Prativa remained available at the school till the tiffin break. Prativa

wanted him to call an auto-rickshaw, but he could not oblige to her

request as he had to remain busy with the kids of the school. The school

gate is usually opened at 8.30 A.M. and on the date of occurrence, the

deceased Prativa was the first teacher to enter into the school campus.

The deceased used to talk over mobile phone, off and on, but he can not

say with whom she used to talk. He heard from others that the deceased

used to talk over mobile phone with a person, whose surname was one

‘Das’. He does not know the accused.

16

33. P.W.-15 Pabitra Kumar Rabha is a resident of Goalpara.

His version is that there is a rubber garden known as Dosarapara

Rakshyasini Reserve, which belongs to a local Mahila Sammittee. On a

day, when the members of the said Mahila Sammittee smelt foul odour

emanating from somewhere, they informed the matter to him and his

associates Kelvin Rabha and Nareswar Rabha and they, in turn, informed

the police. The police came along with a Magistrate to the place of

occurrence and found a female dead body with burn injury all over the

body and further, found one ‘dao’ at the place, which was seized by Ext.-

6. Thereafter, he filed the FIR, Ext.-5. Police prepared inquest report

Ext.-4 on the dead body of the deceased at the spot in presence of

Magistrate and them. The deadbody was partly decomposed.

34. P.W.-16 Rohini Kumar Choudhury was the Additional

Deputy Commissioner of Goalpara District. His evidence is that on

01.06.2009, on the requisition of police, in his presence, police recovered

a decomposed deadbody of an woman, aged about 32 years, buried in a

trance, in a rubber garden, situated at a distance of about 3 kms from

Goalpara Police Station. He prepared the inquest report Ext.-4 on the

dead body. The body was partly burnt and decomposed. He conducted

the inquest, in presence of the police and others, namely, Kelvin Rabha,

Pabitra Kumar Rabha and Haripriya Rabha. He deputed Nayan Pathak, an

Executive Magistrate, to keep the dead body for 72 hours, till the dead

body was identified. He directed the Magistrate, either to bury or to burn

the deadbody, after expiry of 72 hours, if the deadbody remained

unclaimed. As per requisition of police, he entrusted the Executive

Magistrate, Nayan Pathak to collect fumer bone for DNA test. In cross-

examination, he has stated, interalia, that the police officer did not put

signature on Ext.-4. No belonging was found at the place. There was a

maxy over the dead body of the deceased.

35. P.W.-17 Mrigendra Narayan Borah is the Handwriting

Expert of FSL, Assam, Guwahati. His evidence, interalia, is that he had

undergone 2 years diploma course on the subject of Forensic Documents

w.e.f. 01.09.1980 to 01.09.1982, in the Institute of Criminology and

17

Forensic Science. He has examined thousands of question documents,

received from the states of North-East. On 08.07.2009, certain

documents were received from the Deputy Superintendent of Police of

Pandu Division, Guwahati by the Director of FSL, Assam, Guwahati. He

has recognized Ext.-9, the forwarding letter, dated 03.07.2009. The case

was endorsed to his division for examination and opinion. He has

recognized Ext.-9(2), the receipt memo of the sealed packet.

Accordingly, he examined the document applying various aspects of

identification of handwriting and detection of forgery, applying scientific

instruments, like magnifying lenses, stereo zoom microscope, UV-IR

radiation with the help of I-R spest USC-5000 etc. On examination of the

writings, both question and the specimen, he found that the standard

writings did not contain much of the capital letters, found on the

disputed envelope for facilitating of comparison. Considering the

sensitive nature of the case, he requested the Investigating Officer to

make available of such capital writings of the accused person, which was

received on 15.07.2009 and endorsed to him by the Director, FSL, for

examination. He has recognized Ext.-10, the said letter, dated

15.07.2009. He made an exhaustive examination of the questioned

writings, that is, one letter and one envelope, which he marked as Q1 to

Q6 and the standard writings, both earlier and new ones, marked as S1

to S12 for his convenience. He held the opinion that the person,

who wrote the blue enclosed writings and signatures stamped

and marked S1 to S12, wrote the red enclosed writings, the

signature similarly stamped and marked as Q1 to Q6. The Director

of FSL forwarded his opinion along with all the exhibits to the forwarding

authority. He has recognized Ext.-9(3), his opinion, Ext.-9(4), the

forwarding letter, Ext.-9(5), the signature of the then Director, FSL,

Assam and Ext.-9(3-A), his signature. He has further recognized Ext.-9(3-

B), the reasons for the opinion and Ext.-9(3-C) his signature. His reasons

for the opinion were based on observed physical facts, evaluated in the

light of the basic rules of identifications and experience. In cross-

examination, he has, interalia, deposed that M. Ext.-1, the questioned

18

writings are not in capital letters. M. Ext.-1 to Chitra Bora, marked Q3

and dated 13.05.2009, marked as Q4 is of different ink, but it was

written by some person. He has not determined the age of the letter. He

asked the I.O. to send further specimen handwriting in capital letters to

remove the difficulties in examination. In S1 to S12 standard writings,

there is mention that specimen handwriting was taken, in presence of

the Deputy Superintendent of Police. S7, S8 and S9 writings are of

carbon copy. The signature of Shital Das is not appearing in the

specimen writings in capital letters. The questioned writings S1 to S12

were not taken in presence of a Magistrate.

36. P.W.-18 Dr. Bhaskar Jyoti Baishya is the doctor of

Goalpara Civil Hospital, who performed the post-mortem examination on

the unidentified female dead body, aged around 32 years, on

01.06.2009, with reference to Goalpara P.S., G.D. Entry No. 09, dated

01.06.2009. According to him, the dead body with maggots of a female

was found in partially decomposed condition with 64% burn, over the

surface area sparing the lower limbs. During post-mortem examination,

the doctor found as follows:-

“Wallis, ribs and cartilages – Walls are burnt 2nd degree. Coagulation,

Neurosis of epidermis and dermis. Ribs and cartilages healthy.

Pleurae – congested.

larynx and tracheae – Black particles of soot mixed with mucous

extending to both lungs, congested and edematous.

Both the lungs – Congested.

Pericardium – Congested.

Heart – Chambers are full with clotted blood.

Vessels – Reduced caliber due to contraction of soft tissue.

Injury – Second degree burn.

Walls – Second degree burn.

Peritoneum – Congested.

Mouth pharynx esophagus – Congested soft mixed with mucous.

Stomach and its contents – Congested and contains liquid.

19

Large intestine and its contents – Congested and contains faecal

matter.

Cranium and spinal canal –

Scalp – 2nd degree burn.

Skull – Sclap show a linear 1” fissure due to intense heat.

Vertebrae – Congested.

Membrane – Congested.

Brain – Congested

Organs of generation – External organs are decomposed. Uterus is not

gravid.

37. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death of the

deceased was due to asphyxia and burn injury, which were ante-mortem

in nature. The said injuries were sufficient to cause death of the victim,

in the ordinary course of nature. He found that time since death was 2 to

3 days. He recognized Ext.-11 the post-mortem report. The defence

declined to cross-examine the doctor.

38. P.W.-19 S.I. Pawan Kalita is the Investigating Officer of

Goalpara P.S. case No. 174/2009. His version is that on 01.06.2009,

having received an information at around 11.30 A.M. from Kelvin Rabha

and Pabitra Rabha to the effect that they had noticed one freshly dug

trance inside one rubber garden, covered with jungles and one ‘dao’ was

lying on its side, the Officer In-charge made Goalpara P.S., G.D. Entry

No. 9, vide Ext.-13, dated 01.06.2009. He proceeded to the place of

occurrence along with staff and the said two persons. As pointed out by

the said two persons, he prepared the sketch map Ext.-12 and seized the

‘dao’ by Ext.-6, the seizure memo. He found a trance, which was newly

dug. He seized the ‘dao’ by Ext.-2, the seizure memo. He found a dead

body in the trance. The place of occurrence was bounded on the East- a

vacant plot of land of Subhash Rabha, on the South- a vacant plot of

land of Haguri Rabha, on the North- a shed of Pragati Mahila Sammittee

and on the West- a rubber garden. Finding the dead body, he informed

the incident to the Officer In-charge of Goalpara P.S. Thereafter,

Executive Magistrate R.K. Choudhury came to the place of occurrence

20

and in his presence, the dead body was disinterred. The Executive

Magistrate held inquest on the dead body of a female human being,

aged about 30/32 years. The face and upper limb were found burnt.

Photograph of the deadbody was taken. Then he sent the deadbody for

post mortem examination. After recovery of the deadbody, Kelvin Rabha

lodged an F.I.R., whereupon Goalpara P.S. Case No. 174/2009 u/s

302/201 was registered. The deadbody was kept in morgue for

identification for 72 hours. As there was none to identify the deadbody,

he, with the permission of the District Magistrate disposed off it.

Thereafter, on 18.06.2009, S.I. Binay Kalita of Bharalumukh P.S.,

arrested the accused Shital Das and informed Goalpara P.S. and brought

him to Goalpara. According to S.I. Binay Kalita, the I.O., during

interrogation the accused admitted to had killed one Prativa Barai at

Goalpara area. He interrogated the accused. During interrogation, the

accused disclosed that he would show the place, where Prativa was

killed. Then they accompanied the accused Shital Das to the place,

wherefrom the deadbody was recovered. Shital Das led them to the

place of occurrence and recovered a black coloured vanity bag, which

contained cloths, watch and other articles of the deceased Prativa. Those

articles were identified by the brother of the deceased Prativa. S.I. Binay

Kalita seized the bag and the articles by Ext.-7, the seizure memo. He

collected the post mortem report and prayed for amalgamation of

Goalpara P.S. case No. 174/2009 with that of the Bharalumukh P.S. Case

and sent the case diary to Bharalumukh P.S. In cross-examination, he

has, interalia, stated that he did not send the ‘dao’ to the FSL for

examination. At the time of disinterring the deadbody, no other material

was found in the surrounding area of the place of occurrence.

Thereafter, the FIR was lodged and he was entrusted to investigate the

case. He had closed the case diary of Goalpara P.S. Case No. 174/2009,

on 25.08.2009. He does not know whether S.I. Binay Kalita, the I.O. of

Bharalumukh P.S. case gave any written information to the Officer In-

charge of Goalpara P.S. He has not recorded the statement of accused

Shital Das leading to discovery and did not show the seized ‘dao’ to him.

21

He did not record in the case diary as to who accompanied S.I. Binay

Kalita and the accused to the place of occurrence. Ext.-6, the seizure

memo was prepared by S.I. Binay Kalita. There was no witness of

Goalpara in the seizure list relating to the seized bag. The witnesses

were from Guwahati.

39. P.W.-20 DSP Hari Chandra Sarma was the Officer In-

charge of Goalpara P.S. On 01.06.2009, according to him, on that day

one Kelvin Rabha and Pabitra Rabha informed at the Police Station that

there was a newly dug trance, near Dadar Nagar Road and a ‘dao’ was

lying there. On the basis of the said information, he made Goalpara P.S.,

G.D. Entry No.9, dated 01.06.2009 (Ext.-13). Thereafter, Kelvin Rabha

lodged an F.I.R., whereupon, he registered Goalpara P.S. Case No.

147/2009, and entrusted the investigation to S.I. Pawan Kalita. In cross-

examination, he has, interalia, stated that he can not recollect, whether

he received any request from any Police Officer of Bharalumukh P.S. for

investigating any case in any area.

40. P.W.-21 S.I. Binay Kalita is the Investigating Officer of

Bharalumukh P.S. Case No. 163/2009. His evidence is that the informant

lodged a missing entry with regard to missing of his daughter,

whereupon Bharalumukh P.S. G.D. Entry No. 9/2009, dated 01.06.2009,

vide Ext.-13, was made. He visited the place of occurrence and prepared

a sketch map thereof, vide Ext.-12. He also visited the place of

occurrence at Goalpara. He also visited the school, wherefrom the victim

was missing and prepared another sketch map. He seized a letter

purportedly written by one Amit Saikia, vide M. Ext.-1. He seized the

mobile no. 94353-12213 of Nokia model No. 1203. He also seized

another handset without sim card by seizure memo Ext.-8. He has

recognized M. Ext.-7 and M. Ext.-8, the said seized two mobile handsets.

He also seized one ladies bag, one surider, one urna of surider, one gold

coloured ladies wrist watch from the place, where the deadbody was

kept buried at Goalpara, vide Ext.-7 the seizure memo. He also seized

one fumer bone from the place, where the deadbody was buried at

Goalpara. He has recognized Ext.-14, the said seizure memo. He has

22

recognized M. Ext.-1, the letter which was sent for Forensic Examination

and also collected the report. He arrested the accused from Bongaigaon.

After arrest, the court granted remand of the accused for five days. He

has recognized Ext.-15, the disclosure statement made by the accused,

on the basis of which and on being led by the accused, he seized the

articles by Ext.-7, the seizure memo. On completion of investigation, he

submitted the charge-sheet, Ext.-16. At the time of seizure of the articles

by Ext.-7, the seizure memo, S.I. Pawan Kalita of Goalpara P.S.

accompanied him along with other police personnel. In cross-

examination, he has, interalia, stated that he opened the case diary on

08.06.2009. From 08.06.2009 till 25.06.2009, he could not get any clue

involving the accused. He has not seized the mobile of the victim. He

arrested the accused Shital Das, on 27.06.2009, while bringing the

accused from Bongaigaon, on 26.06.2009, no intimation was given to the

court at Goalpara. He arrested the accused on the basis of the call details

of mobile phone number 97061-24495. He has not seized the said mobile

phone handset. He did not make any prayer for recording the

confessional statement of the accused. He received the FSL report on M.

Ext.-1, on 10.08.2009. On 28.06.2009, he proceeded to Goalpara along

with the accused. He did not receive any correspondence from Goalpara

P.S. till 28.06.2009. Accused told before him that he killed Prativa and

buried her deadbody somewhere at Goalpara and on that basis of

information, he went to Goalpara along with the accused. He reported at

Goalpara P.S., on 28.06.2009, at about 4/5 P.M. He denied the defence

suggestion, that he seized the articles by Ext.-7, the seizure memo at the

instance of the accused, who accompanied them to Goalpara. He denied

the defence suggestion that Ext.-7, is a false seizure memo. There is no

mention on the case diary, as to when he received the case diary from

Goalpara P.S., before 02.09.2009.

ARGUMENTS:

41. Mr. Rohini Kumar Das, learned Sr. counsel appearing for

the prosecution as Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that the entire

23

prosecution case incepted on 01.06.2009, when the father of the

deceased girl lodged a missing entry of his daughter Prativa Barai, before

the Officer In-charge of Bharalumukh P.S., which was entered in the G.D.

Entry No. 9 of the said police station. Mr. Das, the learned Special Public

Prosecutor has submitted that missing of Prativa Barai came to light,

when she left for Milky Way Public School, situated at Bishnupur,

Guwahati, where she worked as a teacher, on 29.05.2009, Friday, at

about 8 A.M. and informed her father Chitta Ranjan Barai that she was

proceeding to Delhi along with the owner of the school Aradhana Medhi,

but on Sunday, when Aradhana Medhi expressed her ignorance about the

whereabouts of his daughter. It has been submitted that the deceased

Prativa and accused Shital Das were in deep love and on 06.06.2009,

Chitta Ranjan Barai received a hand written letter from one Amit Saikia of

Ulubari, Guwahati, which gave rise to filing of an F.I.R., on 08.06.2009,

expressing apprehension that Prativa might have been kidnapped and

murdered and the same was registered as Bharalumukh P.S. Case No.

163/2009 u/s 366 I.P.C., dated 08.06.2009. In the mean time, Kelvin

Rabha and others filed an F.I.R., on 01.06.2009, before the Officer In-

charge of Goalpara P.S. informing recovery of a partly burnt deadbody of

a female in Rakshyasini Reserve Gaon, Dosrapara Rubber Garden,

Goalpara, which was registered as Goalpara P.S. Case No. 174/2009 u/s

302/201 I.P.C. Mr. Das, learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted

that in course of investigation into the aforementioned case of

Bharalumukh P.S., the accused Shital Das was arrested at Bongaigaon

and confessed to killing of Prativa and disposal of her deadbody at the

place of recovery at Goalpara, before the police. The accused led the

investigating officer (P.W.-21) to the place at Goalpara, where the

deadbody was buried and recovered some belongings of the deceased

and the weapon of the offence a ‘dao’ from the place. The deadbody was

identified on photograph by the brother of the deceased Shir Chandan

Barai at Goalpara P.S. and he also identified the recovered articles as

belonged to his deceased sister Prativa and then established on DNA test.

It is further submitted that the disinterred deadbody of Prativa Barai was

24

disposed off after 72 hours by Goalpara P.S. Therefore, both the

aforementioned cases were clubbed together, under the order of learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara, dated 25.08.2009, passed in Goalpara

P.S. Case No. 174/2009 u/s 302/201 I.P.C. and investigation was

continued. According to Mr. Das, learned Special Public Prosecutor, the

accused thoroughly confessed his guilt before the police and other

persons and thus, there are 26 (twenty six) incriminating circumstantial

evidence, established by chain of events, pointing only to the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

42. Contoverting the above arguments of the prosecution side,

Mr. S.I. Rasul, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the accused,

has, interalia, submitted that in this case the I.O. of Goalpara P.S. Case

No. 174/2009, could not identify the deadbody recovered at Goalpara

and also finding no clue to the miscreant, who caused burnt to death of

the woman, closed the case diary on 24.08.2009. It has been submitted

that there is no evidence, such as General Diary Entry of Goalpara P.S. to

show that the investigating officer of Bharalumukh P.S. Case visited

Goalpara along with the accused Shital Das and in fact, there was no

correspondence between the two Police Stations, in this regard. There is

not even any statement of the accused leading to discovery and

confession before any Judicial Magistrate. According to Mr. S.I. Rasul,

learned Sr. defence counsel, that there is no evidence on record to show

that the offence was committed by the accused concerning Bharalumukh

P.S. and Goalpara P.S. and thus, there is no chain of circumstantial

evidence to connect the accused to the aforementioned two cases, which

were amalgamated and further, that amalgamation of both the cases was

illegal and beyond the jurisdictions of the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrates of Kamrup and Goalpara districts. It has been further

submitted that the specimen handwriting of Sital Das was not taken by

any Magistrate for the purpose of examination of the disputed letter,

dated 06.06.2009, which was written in the name of one Amit Saikia by

the F.S.L., Assam. It has been vehemently submitted that the

prosecution has totally failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable

25

doubt and it can not derive any strength from weakness of the defence

whatsoever. Hence, it is submitted to honourably acquit the accused of

the charges.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCEWHETHER MURDER:(Murder)IDENTITY OF CORPSE OF PRATIVA:

43. In this case, the prosecution sought to establish the

identity of the deceased Prativa Barai by identification of the articles such

as one vanity bag, one surider, one urna of surider, one ladies wrist

watch, recovered and seized, on 28.06.2009, at 5.30 P.M., at Goalpara

Railway Station Road, underneath a culvert by P.W.-21 S.I. Binay Kalita,

the I.O. of Bharalumukh P.S. case No. 163/2009, vide Ext.-7, the seizure

memo, in presence of P.W.-19 S.I. Pawan Kalita, the I.O. of Goalpara

P.S. Case No. 174/2009, u/s 302/201 IPC, P.W.-8 Atul Rajbongshi, a

resident of Bharalumukh, Guwahati and P.W.-7 Chandan Barai, the

brother of the deceased, who identified the aforementioned seized

articles, namely, the vanity bag M. Ext.-3, the surider M. Ext.-4, the urna

M. Ext.-5 and the wrist watch, M. Ext.-6 as belonged to his deceased

sister Prativa Barai.

44. It is pertinent to be mentioned that a partially

decomposed unidentified female deadbody with extensive burn injury on

its surface area was found buried on 01.06.2009, at Dosrapara Rubber

Bagan, situated at Rakshyasini Reserve at Goalpara, under Goalpara P.S.,

with reference to the said Police Station G.D. Entry No. 09/2009, dated

01.06.2009, followed by lodging of the FIR, dated 01.06.2009, before the

Officer In-charge of Goalpara P.S. by P.W.-3 Sri Kelvin Rabha, P.W.-15

Pabitra Rabha and another and corroborated specifically the fact of

recovery of the female deadbody by P.W.-4 Bihuti Rabha, P.W.-5

26

Haripriya Rabha, P.W.-6 Nijara Rabha, all of who are residents of near

the place of recovery at Goalpara, shown in the sketch map Ext.-13,

prepared by P.W.-19 S.I.Pawan Kalita, the I.O. of Goalpara P.S. P.W.-16

Rohini Kumar Choudhury, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara

conducted the inquest on the corpse, after disinterment vide Ext.-4, on

police requisition, and besides collecting fumer bone for DNA test,

deputed one Nayan Kumar Pathak, Executive Magistrate, to keep the

corpse for 72 hours for identification and then to dispose off the corpse,

if unclaimed. The entire process, aforementioned, was done in presence

of P.W.-3 Kelvin Rabha, P.W.-5 Haripriya Rabha, P.W.-15 Pabitra Kumar

Rabha and P.W.-19 S.I. Pawan Kalita, the I.O. of Goalpara P.S., who

have corroborated the facts, aforementioned. According to P.W.-19 S.I.

Pawan Kalita, the I.O., the dead body was disposed off after 72 hours,

on the order of the District Magistrate, Goalpara as unidentified and

unclaimed. The defence appears to have not disputed these material

facts. Thus, the female dead body remained unidentified until recovery of

the articles, seized by Ext.-7, the seizure memo, at the instance of P.W.-

21 S.I. Binay Kalita, the I.O. of Bharalumukh P.S. Case No. 163/2009,

and in presence of witnesses, aforementioned at Goalpara, on

28.06.2009.

45. Apart from the above evidence, the evidence of P.W.-19

S.I. Pawan Kalita, the I.O. of Goalpara P.S. Case No. 174/2009, shows

that he took photograph of the corpse. P.W.-1 Chitta Ranjan Barai has

also deposed that the police of Goalpara P.S. handed over to him one

film negative, which he developed and confirmed the said photos as

belonged to his daughter Prativa Barai. Though this fact has not been

corroborated by P.W.-19, the defence has not disputed this fact in his

cross-examination. On the other hand, P.W.-8 Atul Rajbangshi, the

tenant under P.W.-1, has deposed that P.W.-7 Chandan Barai, the

brother of Prativa, identified the dead body of Prativa Barai on the

photograph, based on its complexion and a piece of cloth at Goalpara

P.S., but this material fact has not been disclosed in the evidence of

P.W.-7, aforementioned. The defence appears to have not disputed this

27

piece of evidence in the cross-examination of P.W.-8. The prosecution

has not exhibited the aforementioned photographs of the corpse for

identification by P.Ws-1, 7, 8 and 19(the I.O.). Further, though DNA test

report, dated 05.12.2009, issued by the F.S.L., Assam is available on the

case record vide Mark ‘X’, but the prosecution neither examined Dr.

Manalisha Choudhury, Junior Scientific Officer, Serology Division and

DNA Typing Unit, F.S.L., Assam who had done the test nor exhibited the

same, without explaining any reason. A perusal of the DNA test report

vide Mark ‘X’ shows that though the DNA profile of mother and father

yield good quality of DNA, the human femur bone did not yield good

quality of DNA for which DNA profile could not be obtained. Therefore,

the DNA test report does not prove with any scientific accuracy in aid of

the prosecution case that the recovered deadbody was the genetic

daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2, the father and mother respectively. However,

in view of consistency in evidence of P.Ws. 1, 7, 8, 19 (I.O.) and 21

(I.O.), discussed above, as a whole, so far their evidence relate to

identity of the disposed of corpse of female human being is concerned, it

is accepted that the dead body was of no other person except that of

Prativa Barai, the daughter of P.Ws 1(father) and 2(mother) only.

HOMICIDAL KILLING:

46. From the evidence of P.W.-18 Dr. Bhaskar Jyoti Baishya,

the doctor, who performed the post-mortem examination on the corpse,

on 01.06.2009, at Goalpara Civil Hospital, in connection with Goalpara

P.S., G.D. Entry No.09, dated 01.06.2009, found it decomposed with

maggots and 64% of body surface area burnt, sparing the lower limbs

and held the opinion that the cause of death was due to asphyxia and

burn injury, which were ante-mortem in nature and that the injuries are

sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death of a person.

According to the doctor, time since death was 2/3 days and recognized

Ext.-11, the post-mortem report. The defence declined to cross-examine

the doctor and therefore, the doctor’s (P.W.-18) findings and opinion

have remained undisputed. Further, on perusal of the contents of Ext.-4,

28

the inquest report, prepared by P.W.-16 Rohini Kumar Choudhury,

Additional Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara, it transpires that a

decomposed deadbody with burn injury was disinterred from a trance at

Dosarapara and then the inquest was held on it. His (P.W.-16) evidence

is corroborated, as a whole, by P.W.-3 Kelvin Rabha, P.W.-4 Bihuti

Rabha, P.W.-6 Nijara Rabha, P.W.-15 Pabitra Rabha and P.W.-19 S.I.

Pawan Kalita, the I.O. of Goalpara P.S. Case No. 174/2009. It may

further be mentioned here that P.W.-19, the I.O. of Goalpara P.S. case

recovered one ‘dao’, vide M. Ext.-2 by Ext.-6, the seizure memo, but it

was not sent for serological test to the F.S.L. to establish that it was

used as a weapon of offence in any manner. Though there was no eye

witness to the crime, the series of facts like finding of the corpse in a

trance in Rakshyasini Reserve, Dosrapara at Goalpara, without any claim

in the locality as to its identity, nature of injury found on the bodybody

and the seizure of incriminating identified materials of an woman at a

nearby place to the trance clearly establish that the acts,

aforementioned, by which the death of Prativa Barai was caused was

done with the intention of causing her death and then caused

disappearance of evidence of offence and therefore, this court has no

hesitation to hold that her death was certainly ‘culpable homicide’,

defined in Section 299 IPC, which amounted to ‘murder’ which is defined

in Section 300 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

COMPLICITY OF ACCUSED:

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:

47. In the instant case, there was no eye witness to the

incident of murder of Prativa Barai. However, the prosecution has sought

to establish a number of circumstantial evidence, delineated through the

P.Ws to connect the complicity of the accused to the crime. It may be

reiterated that the father (P.W.-1) and brother (P.W.-7) of the deceased

Prativa identified a female corpse found buried at Goalpara, which the

police of Goalpara P.S. disposed off after 72 hours as unidentified after

causing postmortem examination and retaining photographs, thereof and

29

on the basis of identification of photographs and seized articles which

belonged to the deceased. Therefore, in the absence of the corpus

deliciti, the prosecution must lead some amount of direct or

circumstantial evidence leading to the inescapable conclusion that the

person has died and that the accused had committed the murder. In

Kusuma Ankama Rao Vs. State of A.P. [AIR 2008 SC 2819], the

Hon’ble Apex Court laid the guidelines for appreciation of

circumstantial evidence, as follows:

“12….. The condition precedent in the words of this

Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial

evidence, must be fully established. They are:-

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of

guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The

circumstances concerned ‘must’ or ‘should’ and not ‘may be’

established;

(2) the facts so established should be consistent

only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to

say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis

except that the accused is guilty;

(3) the circumstances should be of conclusive

nature and tendency;

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis

except the one to be proved; and

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete

as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion

consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show

that in all human probability the act must have been done by

the accused.”

30

48. In view of the above settled elementary rules of law on

circumstantial evidence, this court deems it apposite to discuss on each

circumstance that has been sought to be established by the prosecution.

LOVE AFFAIRS:

49. Firstly, the prosecution has sought to establish that the

motive behind the murder of Prativa Barai by the accused Shital Das was

his frustrated love affairs with her providing a foundational material to

connect the chain of circumstances. It is noticed from the written missing

information, dated 01.06.2009, vide Ext.-1 and the so called F.I.R., dated

08.06.2009, vide Ext.-2, lodged by P.W.-1, Chitta Ranjan Barai, the

father of the deceased Prativa that no mention was made about her love

affairs with the accused Shital Das, as the probable cause of her

abduction and murder. According to P.W.-1 Chitta Ranjan Barai, his wife

P.W.-2 Mina Barai told him, about one month before her missing that the

accused Shital Das, who was an associate teacher of Milky Way English

Medium High School, with their daughter Prativa, proposed to marry her.

He (P.W.-1) further stated that on 25.06.2009, S.I. Binay Kalita (P.W.-

21) reported him that Prativa was staying with Shital Das. P.W.-2 Mina

Barai has corroborated the evidence of her husband (P.W.-1) and further

added that Prativa refused to consent to her marriage with the accused

and also that the teachers of the school disclosed that the accused

regularly visited and met Prativa. The fact of stay of the accused with

Prativa has come in the evidence of P.W.-7 Chandan Barai, the brother of

Prativa, as he had come to know, on 25.06.2009, from the S.S.P.

Debajit. From the evidence of P.W.-10 Ratna Choudhury, P.W.-11

Aradhana Medhi and P.W.-12 Jitendra Kumar Singh, the teachers of Milky

Way Public School, it appears, as a whole, that the accused Shital Das

had love affairs with Prativa Barai and they had frequent telephonic

conversations and further, that their relationship was widely known. On

perusal of the evidence of P.W.-21 S.I. Binay Kalita, the I.O. of

Bharalumukh P.S. Case No. 163/2009, it appears that this aspect was not

at all investigated into. The accused in his statement, recorded u/s 313

31

Cr.P.C., denied having love affairs with Prativa Barai. However, based on

the consistent and trustworthy evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 and 14,

it may be inferred that the accused Shital Das and the deceased Prativa

Barai were in deep love, beyond doubt. But it can not conclusively be

held that the accused Shital Das proposed to marry Prativa Barai but, she

rejected the said proposal for want of satisfactory corroborative

testimony giving rise to the possibility of wrecking vengeance by the

accused Shital Das on her, beyond all reasonable doubt.

MOBILE PHONE MESSAGE:

50. Secondly, on 01.06.2009, at about 4.30 A.M., a message

was allegedly transmitted from the cell phone of the deceased to her

brother P.W.-9 Kripa Barai informing that Prativa was safe and was

staying with one Amit Saikia of Jorhat and thereafter, the cell phone was

found switched off. According to P.W.-1 Chitta Ranjan Barai, the father

of the deceased Prativa, pursuant to receipt of the aforesaid message, on

01.06.2009, he filed the missing entry at Bharalumukh P.S., vide Ext.-1.

Here, it may be mentioned that from the evidence of P.W.-1 Chitta

Ranjan Barai (the father), P.W.-2 Mina Barai (the mother), P.W.-7

Chandan Barai (the brother), P.W.-8 Atul Rajbangshi (the tenant of P.W.-

1) and P.W.-9 Kripa Kumar Barai (the brother), it is apparent that the

deceased Prativa Barai left home, on 29.05.2009, at about 8 A.M., for

school, informing her parents that she was leaving for Delhi along with

the Head Mistress P.W.-11 Aradhana Medhi with assurance to return

home on 31.05.2009, but since then she remained untraced. The

evidence of P.W.-1 Chitta Ranjan Barai, P.W.-7 Chandan Barai, P.W-9

Kripa Kumar Barai show that on 29.05.2009, forenoon, P.W.-14 Pratul

Barman, the chowkider of the school informed P.W.-2 Minati Barai, the

mother of Prativa that Prativa and P.W.-11 Aradhana Medhi were

dropped at the Airport, but this fact has not come in the evidence of

P.W.-2, aforementioned, and on the other hand, P.W.-14 Pratul Barman

32

has stated that on the request of Prativa, he informed her mother P.W.-2

that she was leaving for a temple and further, stated that on return to

the school, he found Prativa at school till the tiffin break, that is, mid-

day. There is no indication on evidence that the accused Shital Das,

during the said intervening period, had meeting or conversation even

over mobile phone, at any point of time with the deceased Prativa.

Further, on 30.05.2009/31.05.2009, P.W.-11 Aradhana Medhi, the Head

Mistress of Milky Way School, on enquiry of P.W.-1, Chitta Ranjan Barai,

clarified that she did not accompany Prativa to any place. Thus, it is seen

that Prativa remained untraced from the afternoon of 29.05.2009, until

message from her cell phone was transmitted to P.W.-9 Kripa Kumar

Barai, her brother, on 01.06.2009, informing that she was at Jorhat with

one Amit Saikia. The prosecution has not exhibited the text of the said

electronic message, obviously for non-seizure during investigation, so as

to enable this court to place reliance on this piece of oral evidence to

look for other evidence to ascertain, when in the guise of one Amit

Saikia, the accused Shital Das transmitted the aforesaid message.

Therefore, this piece of uncertain evidence on record can not be treated

as incriminating circumstantial evidence against the accused, beyond

doubt.

HANDWRITTEN LETTER:

51. Thirdly, the prosecution has sought to establish the

complicity of the accused Shtial Das to the crime by leading evidence

including that of P.W.-17, Mrigendra Narayan Borah, the handwriting

expert, to the effect that he had written a letter in the guise of one Amit

Saikia, addressed to Prativa’s father P.W.-1 Chitta Ranjan Barai, which

was received on 06.06.2009, by speed post, assuring to marry Prativa by

the month of December, 2009 and that Prativa was working in Samplin

Company at Jorhat. From the evidence of P.W.-1, Chitta Ranjan Barai, it

appears that after receipt of the said letter vide M. Ext.-1, seized by Ext.-

3, the seizure memo, dated 27.06.2009, he visited Jorhat in search of

Prativa, but he found no trace of her and on 08.06.2009, he filed a

33

second F.I.R., before the Officer In-charge of Bharalumukh P.S. vide

Ext.-2, informing about receipt of the said letter M. Ext.-1, from one Amit

Saikia and expressing suspicion that Prativa might have been abducted

and killed, whereupon Bharalumukh P.S. Case No. 163/2009, dated

08.06.2009, was registered. P.W.-21 S.I. Binay Kalita, the I.O. of the said

case seized the letter M. Ext.-1, on being produced by P.W.-1, by Ext.-3,

the seizure memo, in presence of P.W.-13 Bitul Kalita. P.W.-13, however,

could not say from where the police collected M. Ext.-1, the letter.

52. With regard to the above letter, P.W.17 Mrigendra

Narayan Borah, the Handwriting Expert of F.S.L., Assam has stated that

he received the questioned document in sealed cover, on 08.07.2009,

from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pandu Division, Guwahati,

through the Director, F.S.L., vide Ext.-9, the forwarding letter, dated

03.07.2009, for examination, but on examination of the writings of both

the questioned and the specimen found the specimen handwritings did

not contain much of the capital letters found in the disputed envelop to

facilitate comparison and therefore, he requested the I.O., over phone,

to make available of specimen handwriting, containing such capital

letters, P.W.-17 received the second specimen handwriting of the

accused vide Ext.-10, the forwarding letter of the Deputy Superintendent

of Police, Pandu Division, Guwahati and on observation of the Physical

facts evaluated in the light of the basic rules of identifications and

experience held the following opinion vide Ext.-9(3):

53. “OPINION

The disputed writings in conection with

Bharalumukh P.S. Case No. 163/2009, u/s 366 I.P.C. have been

carefully and thoroughly examined and compared with the

standard writings and signature from their original documents

in all aspects of identification of handwriting and detection of

forgery with scientific aids like magnifying lenses, stereo zoom

microscope, oblique and transmitted lighting arrangements,

ultra-violate radiation, infra red spect, systems (infra-

luminescence effect), Docucenter 3000. VSC 5000. etc.

34

2. The person who wrote the blue enclosed

writings and signature stamped and marked S-1 to S-12 also

wrote the red enclosed writings and signature similarly stamped

and marked Q1 to Q6.”

54. In cross-examination, P.W.-17, the Handwriting Expert,

has stated that the questioned writings marked S-1 to S-12 were taken in

presence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police instead of a Magistrate

and that S-7, S-8 and S-9 specimen writings were carbon copy. The

prosecution has not examined the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Pandu Division, Guwahati, Budhin Moran, who allegedly obtained the

specimen handwriting of the accused, while in police custody, so as to

afford an opportunity to the defence to cross-examine him, on this

count, in absence of accused’s admission of the specimen handwriting.

Therefore, when the genuineness of the specimen handwriting is in

doubt, this court is afraid to examine the disputed document with the

specimen handwriting allegedly of the accused in the manner provided

u/s 73 of the Evidence Act by comparison and to place reliance on the

evidence of P.W.-17, the Handwriting Expert, as inspiring to rope in the

accused Shital Das holding that he was the author of the disputed

document, M. Ext.-1, the letter. Hence, this piece of prosecution

evidence can not be accepted as a piece of incriminating conclusive

evidence, in absence of internal or external trustworthy evidence relating

to the document in question supporting the view expressed by P.W.-17,

beyond all reasonable doubt.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT:

55. Fourthly, the prosecution has relied on the disclosure

statement of the accused vide Ext.-15, the photocopy, leading to the

discovery of personal articles of the deceased Prativa Barai, which were

seized by Ext.-7, the seizure memo at Goalpara. P.W.-21, S.I. Binay

Kalita, the I.O. of Bharalumukh P.S. Case No. 163/2009, stated that

during police custody for 5 days, the accused Shital Das made the

disclosure statement, aforementioned, and on being led by the accused

35

himself, seized the articles of Prativa by Ext.-7, the seizure memo.

According to P.W.21, the I.O., as he stated in cross-examination, the

accused disclosed that he killed Prativa and buried her deadbody

somewhere at Goalpara and based on this statement, on 28.06.2009, he

along with the accused proceeded to Goalpara and reported at Goalpara

P.S., on that day at about 4 P.M. He denied the defence suggestion that

Ext.-15, the photocopy of the alleged disclosure statement is not a part

of the case diary and that it is a document manufactured later on. It is,

however, surprising to notice that P.W.-20 DSP Hari Chandra Sarmah,

the then Officer In-charge of Goalpara P.S. deposed in cross-examination

that “I can not recollect whether I received any request from any

Police Officer from Bharalumukh P.S. for investigating any case

in my area.” The evidence of P.W.-19 S.I. Pawan Kalita, the I.O. of

Goalpara P.S. Case No. 174/2009, reveals that after arrest of the accused

Shital Das, at Bongaigaon, on 28.06.2009, P.W-21, S.I. Binay Kalita, the

I.O. of Bharalumukh P.S. Case No.163/2009, informed Goalpara P.S. and

further, took him to Goalpara. His (P.W.-19) evidence reveals that during

interrogation by P.W.-21, the accused Shital Das, admitted to had killed

Prativa in Goalpara area and on his interrogation, the accused stated that

he could show the place, where he killed Prativa. Accordingly, P.W.-19 SI

Pawan Kalita stated that the accused led him and P.W.-21 to the place,

wherefrom Prativa’s deadbody was recovered and also led them to

recovery of the personal articles of Prativa, seized by Ext.-7, the seizure

memo, which were identified by her brother. Surprisingly, he (P.W.19)

has stated in cross-examination that the case diary of the said Goalpara

P.S. case was closed on 25.08.2009, and that he did not record the

statement of P.W.-21 nor recorded the statement of disclosure of the

accused. P.W.-19, the I.O., has not even stated the relevant Goalpara

P.S., G.D. Entry No. to show that P.W.-21, the I.O. of Bharalumukh P.S.

Case visited Goalpara P.S, along with the accused and P.W. 7, the

brother of the deceased and P.W.-8, the tenant of P.W.-1, the father of

the deceased. Even, P.W.-21, the I.O. has not stated that P.Ws. 7 and 8

accompanied him (P.W.-21) along with the accused Shital Das to

36

Goalpara, on the basis of the so called disclosure statement, Ext.-15, the

photocopy thereof and no Bharalumukh P.S., G.D. Entry No. is

mentioned or exhibited in this regard. For these lapses on the part of the

investigating agency, this court is of the opinion that no reliance can be

placed on the photocopy of the alleged disclosure statement of the

accused vide Ext.-15, which was allegedly recorded by P.W.-21, the I.O.,

in absence of any independent witness of the locality, corresponding

G.D. Entry of either Bharalumukh P.S. or Goalpara P.S. and also the

evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 8, so far their evidence relats to this fact and

therefore, it can not be held without hesitation that discovery of

incriminating articles of the deceased Prativa Barai at Goalpara was made

in consequence of the information received from the accused Shital Das,

while he was in police custody, beyond all reasonable doubt.

Extra- JUDICIAL CONFESSION IN POLICE CUSTODY:

56. Fifthly, the prosecution has sought to rely on the alleged

extra-judicial confession implicit in Ext.-15, a photocopy of the disclosure

statement of the accused Shital Das, as one of the circumstantial

evidence against him. P.W.-21 S.I. Binay Kalita, the I.O. of Bharalumukh

P.S. case No. 163/2009, stated to have recorded the aforementioned

disclosure statement Ext.-15 and on that basis, the accused led him to

seizure of the articles belonged to the deceased at Goalpara, on

28.06.2009, by Ext.-7, the seizure memo. His evidence is corroborated in

substance by P.W.-8 Atul Rajbangshi, a tenant under P.W.-1. P.W.-7

Chandan Barai, the brother of the deceased and P.W.-19 S.I. Pawan

Kalita, the I.O. of Goalpara P.S. Case No. 174/2009, in connection with

recovery of articles of the deceased Prativa at the instance of the

accused at Goalpara, on 28.06.2015. Such a confession of the accused

made while in police custody is inadmissible in evidence u/s 26 of the

evidence Act. However, on scrutiny of the evidence on record, it

transpires that the prosecution has not brought on evidence the exact

words stated by the accused and even if such confession was made, it

was not made before any independent witness- a responsible officer and

37

further, as stated above, leading to discovery at the instance of the

accused, are also not proved in this case beyond reasonable doubt.

Therefore, in the backdrop of the various suspicious circumstances,

discussed above, this court is hesitant to place reliance, on such alleged

extra-judicial confession reduced into writing, made while in the police

custody, vide Ext.-15, which is a photocopy of the document, as a piece

of incriminating material circumstantial evidence against the accused

Shital Das, beyond all reasonable doubt.

CONCLUSION:

57. For the reasons, set forth above, this Court is

constrained to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to

prove the charges leveled against the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt. In Union Territory of Goa VS Boaventura

D’souza [AIR 1993 Cr.L.J. 181], the Apex Court held that in the

criminal case, mere suspicion however strong, cannot take the

place of proof.

58. Therefore, the accused Shital Das is acquitted of the

charges u/s 364/302/201 I.P.C and set him at liberty forthwith.

59. The judgment and order, as above, is delivered in the

open court, on this the 30th day of July, 2015, under the hand and

seal of this court.

60. Let the seized articles be destroyed in due course of

law.

61. Let the record of G.R. Case No. 5396/2009 be sent

back along with a copy of this judgment and order. The General

Diary of Goalpara P.S. be returned in sealed cover.

62. Accordingly, the case stands disposed of.

(A. Borthakur)Sessions Judge,

Kamrup (M), Guwahati

38

SESSIONS CASE NO. 222 (K) of 2010

A P P E N D I X

LIST OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES

P.W.-1 : Chitta Ranjan Barai is the informant and father of

the deceased Prativa Barai.

P.W.-2 : Mina Barai is the mother of Prativa Barai, the

deceased.

P.W.-3 : Kelvin Rabha is a resident of Goalpara.

P.W.-4 : Bihuti Rabha is a resident of Goalpara.

P.W.-5 : Haripriya Rabha is a resident of Goalpara.

P.W.-6 : Nijara Rabha is resident of Goalpara and member of

Pragati Mahila Sammittee.

P.W.-7 : Chandan Barai is the brother of Prativa Barai, the

deceased.

P.W.-8 : Atul Rajbangshi is a tenant for about 10 years under

Chitta Ranjan Barai, the father of the victim Prativa

Barai.

P.W.-9 : Kripa Kumar Barai is the brother of Prativa Barai- the

deceased.

P.W.-10 : Ratna Choudhury is a colleague teacher of the

deceased Prativa Barai in Milky Way Public School.

P.W.-11 : Aradhana Medhi is the Head Mistress of Milky Way

Public School.

P.W.-12 : Jitendra Kumar Singh is a teacher of Milky Way

Public School.

P.W.-13 : Bitul Kalita is a seizure witness.

P.W.-14 : Pratul Barman is the chowkider of Milky Way Public

School.

P.W.-15 : Pabitra Kumar Rabha is a resident of Goalpara.

P.W.-16 : Rohini Kumar Choudhury was the Additional Deputy

Commissioner of Goalpara District.

39

P.W.-17 : Mrigendra Narayan Borah is the Handwriting Expert

of FSL, Assam, Guwahati.

P.W.-18 : Dr. Bhaskar Jyoti Baishya is the doctor of Goalpara Civil

Hospital.

P.W.-19 : S.I. Pawan Kalita is the Investigating Officer of Goalpara

P.S. case No. 174/2009

P.W.-20 : DSP Hari Chandra Sarma was the Officer In-charge of

Goalpara P.S., on 01.06.2009

P.W.-21 : S.I. Binoy Kalita is the Investigating Officer

Bharalumukh P.S. Case No. 163/2009

LIST OF DEFENCE WITNESSES

N I L

LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED BY PROSECUTION

Ext-1 : Missing entry in Bharalumukh P.S.

Ext-2 : The F.I.R.

Ext-3 : The Seizure list, M.R. No. 51/2009.

Ext-4 : Inquest Report.

Ext-5 : The Ezahar.

Ext-6 : The Seizure list, M.R. No. 147/2009.

Ext-7 : The Seizure list, M.R. No. 50/2009.

Ext-8 : The Seizure list, M.R. No. 52/2009.

Ext-9 : Prayer for examination of exhibit and report.

Ext-10 : Prayer for examination of exhibit and report.

Ext-11 : P.M. report.

Ext-12 : Extract copy of Goalpara P.S. General Diary Entry No.9, dated

01.06.2009.

Ext-13 : Sketch map.

Ext-14 : The Seizure list, M.R. No. 64/2009.

Ext-15 : Statement of the accused Shital Das.

Ext-16 : The Charge-Sheet.

40

MATERIAL EXHIBITN I L

DEFENCE EXHIBITN I L

(A. Borthakur)Sessions Judge,

Kamrup (M), Guwahati.

41