Gauhati HC Upholds Life Sentence in Tea Garden Dao Killing, Accepts Police Officer as Sole Eyewitness
A Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court dismissed an appeal against a Section 302 IPC conviction, holding that a police officer's credible testimony can sustain a murder conviction without independent civilian witnesses.
The Gauhati High Court has dismissed the criminal appeal of Modon Urang, who was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for killing his wife with a dao at a tea estate in Dibrugarh on 16 September 2017. A Division Bench comprising Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Rajesh Mazumdar, pronouncing judgment on 8 May 2026, found no infirmity in the trial court's reasoning. The bench held that the testimony of a police officer who directly witnessed the assault was reliable and cogent, and that the absence of private civilian witnesses from the charge-sheet did not undermine the prosecution case. The conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- were confirmed.
The Killing at Bokpara Tea Estate
On 16 September 2017, bonus payments were being distributed to workers at Bokpara Tea Estate, Dibrugarh. A nearby market had also been set up in the area. At around 4.30 p.m., an FIR was lodged by PW-1, the brother-in-law of the deceased, stating that the appellant had hacked his wife with a dao at line no. 5 of Hatigarh, Bokpara Tea Estate. Dibrugarh PS Case No. 1163/2017 under Section 302 IPC was registered on 17 September 2017.
The prosecution's case was that the appellant's wife had eloped with another person, and the appellant killed her on account of this. The deceased was found in a drain near Bokul L.P. School. Post-mortem examination conducted by PW-3, a doctor at Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh, on 17 September 2017 found five severe chop wounds on the deceased — including injuries to both forearms, the right arm, and two devastating wounds to the head and face, one of which exposed brain matter. The doctor opined that death was instantaneous, caused by a heavy sharp cutting weapon, and was homicidal in nature.
The trial court, the Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, convicted the appellant in Sessions Case No. 168/2017 by judgment dated 1 August 2022, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for three months. The appellant challenged this before the Gauhati High Court.
Challenges Raised by the Appellant
Senior counsel Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, appearing for the appellant, raised several grounds before the Division Bench.
The central argument was that PW-5, the sole eyewitness to the actual assault, was an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police deployed for law and order duty at the tea estate on bonus day. Counsel argued that in a crowded setting — a tea garden where bonus was being paid and a market had been set up — no private or independent person was listed as a prosecution witness. Relying solely on a police officer's testimony, counsel submitted, was insufficient to sustain a conviction for murder.
The appellant also challenged the evidentiary value of the seized dao. The weapon had not been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. PW-2, a Homeguard who was present at the cash counter during bonus distribution, had seen the appellant holding a blood-stained dao after the incident, but stated in cross-examination that he did not know how the dao came to be stained or whether the blood was human. Counsel argued there was therefore no proof that this particular dao was the murder weapon.
A further ground concerned PW-2's statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Counsel submitted that PW-2 had not given any prior statement to the police under Section 161 CrPC, depriving the appellant of the opportunity to defend himself against PW-2's testimony at trial. The appellant also pointed out that while the charge-sheet had listed 12 prosecution witnesses, only 7 were examined, which counsel argued raised an inference that the prosecution was concealing facts that might have supported the defence.
The State's Response
Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. B. Bhuyan, appearing for the State, submitted that there was no reason to doubt PW-5's evidence merely because he was a police officer. She relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Govindaraju @ Govinda v. State by Sriramapuram Police Station, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 722, which holds that a police officer can be a sole witness and that no infirmity attaches to police testimony simply by reason of the witness's service in the force.
On the chance witness point, the APP relied on Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh and Others, reported in (2007) 13 SCC 360, for the proposition that credible testimony of a chance witness cannot be discarded merely because the witness happened to be present by chance.
The APP also drew the court's attention to the three children born to the deceased and the appellant, all of whom are deaf and dumb. She submitted that the benefits under Section 357A CrPC should be considered for them. On the Section 161 CrPC point, the APP stated that on perusal of the records, she found no written statement of PW-2 under Section 161 CrPC, though his signature appeared as a seizure witness.
How the Bench Reasoned
The Division Bench, in a judgment authored by Justice Michael Zothankhuma, examined the evidence of each prosecution witness before addressing the legal questions raised.
PW-5, ASI Dilip Gogoi, had been deployed for law and order duty at Bokpara Tea Estate on 16 September 2017. He testified that while on duty he heard a hue and cry near Bokul L.P. School, rushed to the spot, and directly witnessed the appellant attacking a woman with a dao, causing her to fall into a ditch. He asked the attacker to drop the dao, which the appellant did. The appellant was then apprehended and the dao was seized and brought to the police station. PW-5 identified both the appellant and the seized dao in court. The bench found that cross-examination did not shake his examination-in-chief.
PW-2, the Homeguard at the cash counter, corroborated PW-5 to the extent that he saw the appellant holding a blood-stained dao after the incident and saw the dead body of the victim in a drain. The bench treated this as partial corroboration of PW-5's account.
On the core legal question of whether a police officer can be a sole witness, the bench applied the ratio in Govindaraju @ Govinda (Supra): “the presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police officer as of other persons.” The bench also cited Girja Prasad v. State of M.P., reported in (2007) 7 SCC 625, which holds that while the rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of police testimony, there is no rule of law barring conviction on such evidence if it is otherwise reliable and trustworthy.
The bench found no whisper of enmity, ulterior motive, or any reason for PW-5 to have given false evidence against the appellant. The fact that other potential eyewitnesses in the crowded tea garden were not made prosecution witnesses did not, in the bench's view, give any reason to doubt PW-5's truthfulness.
On the FSL point, the bench acknowledged that the weapon ought to have been sent for expert examination. However, it held that where there are eyewitnesses to the crime, non-compliance with the requirement of FSL examination does not render the prosecution story unreliable or unbelievable.
On the Section 161 CrPC argument, the bench examined the statutory scheme. Section 161(3) CrPC provides that a police officer may reduce a statement into writing — it is not mandatory. Section 162 CrPC provides that no statement made to a police officer during investigation need be signed by the person making it, even if reduced to writing. The bench found that PW-2 had been examined orally by the police under Section 161 CrPC, and that the absence of a written statement did not vitiate the trial court proceedings or the prosecution case.
Direction on Section 357A CrPC for the Children
The bench recorded that the three children born to the deceased and the appellant are deaf and dumb and in need of support. While dismissing the appeal, the bench recommended that the Assam State Legal Services Authority and the concerned District Legal Services Authority enquire into whether the benefits of Section 357A CrPC can be provided to the children. The bench further directed that if the children are found deserving, a portion of any benefit should be kept in fixed deposits until they come of age, while the remainder may be used for their present upkeep.
The bench also directed that the fees of Mr. U. Choudhury, the Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant, be paid by the Gauhati High Court Legal Services Committee, in appreciation of the assistance he provided.
Outcome
The Division Bench dismissed Criminal Appeal (J) No. 96 of 2022. The conviction of Modon Urang under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for three months, as imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh on 1 August 2022, stand confirmed. The trial court record was directed to be sent back.