Back
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, MALASRI NANDI
Bijuli Bala Rabha – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Michael Zothankhuma, J.
Heard Mr. K Goswami, learned senior counsel and Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
2. This appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 28.04.2017 passed by the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Goalpara in Sessions Case No. 27/2016, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant’s brother Randhan Rabha was hacked to death by his wife (appellant) with a dao. In this regard, the informant (PW-1) submitted an FIR dated 22.12.2015 before the Officer-In-Charge, Bagnan Police Station, pursuant to which Bagnan P.S. Case No. 190/2015 under Section 302 IPC was registered. The Investigating Officer thereafter filed a charge-sheet, having found a prima-facie case under Section 302 IPC against the appellant, as the appellant had apparently disclosed to the Police that she had killed her husband. Charge under Section 302 IPC was
The main legal point established is the requirement for corroborative evidence to establish guilt, the limitations of the memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and the inadmissib....
Point of Law : Offence of Murder – Conviction set aside – Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of circumstances does not show link to each other.
The testimony of a police officer, even if acting as a sole or chance witness, is sufficient for conviction provided it is credible and trustworthy. Procedural lapses, such as failing to send a weapo....
Circumstantial evidence, coupled with a lack of alibi or credible explanation from the appellant, sufficiently establishes guilt in a murder conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confessions can sustain a murder conviction, provided they form a complete chain, even without eyewitness testimony.
The confessional statement of the Appellant was inadmissible under Sections 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act, and the remaining evidence was insufficient to prove the Appellant's guilt beyond reasonable ....
The court ruled that evidence must consistently establish guilt, and circumstantial evidence alone cannot justify a death sentence without clear and compelling justification for extreme culpability.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
