Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Daniel Syiemiong v. State of Meghalaya
Daniel Syiemiong v. State of Meghalaya
Daniel Syiemiong v. State of Meghalaya
05
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.A.(J)No.1/2019
Date of Order: 08.02.2022
Daniel Syiemiong Vs. State of Meghalaya & anr
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjib Banerjee, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. P Yobin, Legal Aid Counsel
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. ND Chullai, AAG with
Mr. S Sen Gupta, Addl.PP
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
Kharumnuid was missing from July 1, 2002 and that the complainant had
come to learn that the person was “killed by his own son Daniel
Syiemiong.”
confessional statement before the police and was produced before the
committed the crime in the course of the two statements rendered by him
under section 313 of the Code. It appears that the second Section 313
Page 1 of 6
statement was obtained upon the evidence rendered by each witness being
regard.
the Magistrate, the accused made a statement to the effect that he had killed
his father on July 1, 2002 at about 2 am “by hitting him on his head with an
iron rod and he died on the spot.” The appellant went on to say that the dead
body “was placed by me in a gunny bag and taken to the garden” and, upon
the appellant digging a pit, the body was buried in such pit.
following the trial judge ascertaining from the appellant whether he had
heard the entire evidence against him, the appellant made a statement that he
could no longer bear the ill treatment meted out to his mother, brother and
sister by his father and “losing control I attacked him and had no intention to
kill my father.” To another question in the course of the first statement under
Section 313 of the Code the appellant replied that he would not adduce any
appellant herein described how he and his mother were ill-treated by the
appellant’s father and how the appellant “started hating my father for his ill
that he did not intend to kill his father and went on to describe the
such statement, the appellant had gone to watch television at a friend’s place
bloodstains on the floor of the verandah. The appellant claimed that he heard
Page 2 of 6
his father coming out of from the kitchen threatening his mother and
“murmuring that he will cut my mother into pieces today ...” The appellant
says that he was scared and angry and he picked up a firewood from the
verandah and “struck on the ear of my father twice ...” He claimed that he
did not remember where he threw the firewood as he fled towards the
jungle, that he returned later and found his father lying on the floor and upon
discovering that his father was dead, “I dragged my father to our garden and
place, where she usually stayed, and reported the incident to the
before the police. The appellant also claimed that he had admitted his guilt
before the police and had informed the police that he kept the body in a
gunny bag and led the police to the place where he had buried his father.
investigating officer’s evidence that an iron rod was recovered from the
house of the appellant at the instance of the appellant and that such iron rod
relevant iron rod was not produced in the course of the trial.) The appellant
asserted before the trial judge that he did not show any iron rod to the police
or to any other person as he did not hit his father with an iron rod but “I hit
him with a firewood ... (and) ... do not know how and why the police seized
who is the mother of the appellant herein. Even though such witness said
that the appellant herein had murdered his father, she claimed not to have
Page 3 of 6
witnessed the incident. It is understandable that the lady was torn between
an abusive husband who had been murdered and her affection for her eldest
10. The two younger sisters of the victim were also called as
witnesses but there is nothing of note in their statements even though they
claimed that the appellant had admitted to his guilt. Nothing turns on the
11. The post-mortem report indicated injuries to the face and head
and the cause of death was said to be internal haemorrhage suffered by the
victim together with shock. The doctor was examined and corroborated the
12. On the basis of the material before the trial court, there was little
doubt that it was the appellant who had committed the offence in a fit of
rage and the appellant had repeatedly confessed to having committed the
the aspect of the recovery of the iron rod, there may have been some ground
light of the lucid clarification issued by the appellant in the course of his two
statements rendered under Section 313 of the Code and the detailed
description of the incident, there can be no doubt that it was the appellant
who killed his father by striking him with a firewood that he found lying in
particularly since the reference to the iron rod is in the statement of the
appellant recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code. The
statement was recorded in Khasi language and the translated version of the
statement appears from the records. It must also be remembered that the
appellant may have no formal education as he stated that he had not been
sent to any school by his father. The description of a firewood stick and an
iron rod may be similar in Khasi language. At any rate, no further time
needs to be wasted on this aspect. In the light of the clear, unambiguous and
his statement under Section 313 of the Code and the post-mortem report
corroborating the nature of the injuries and cause of death which are in tune
with the injuries that the appellant himself admitted to have inflicted on his
father.
15. Further, there is no doubt that it is the appellant who led the police
to the place where he buried his father and the body was exhumed from a
16. In the light of the facts as they presented themselves before the
trial court and the appellant’s description of the incident, there does not
appear to be any scope to doubt that it was the appellant who had killed his
father in a fit of rage. The motive was clear, the circumstances that led the
appellant being enraged comes out from the appellant’s description of what
17. When the facts are as clear as in the present case, there is hardly
any scope to interfere with the conclusion drawn from such facts by the trial
interfering with the judgment and order under appeal dated March 28, 2019.
Let a copy of this judgment and order be immediately made available to the
Meghalaya
08.02.2022
“Lam DR-PS”
Page 6 of 6