Back
LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR, MALASRI NANDI
Anil Kujur S/o. Sri Warish Kujur – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Malasri Nandi, J.
Heard Ms D Saikia, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused appellant in Criminal Appeal 50 (J) of 2019 and Ms R D Mozumdar, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused/ appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 51 (J) of 2019. Also heard Ms S Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.
2. Both the appeals are directed against the Judgment and Order dated 28.01.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Sonitpur, Tezpur, in connection with Sessions Case No. 215/2011, whereby both the accused appellants were convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) each, and in default of payment of fine, further Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (three)months each.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the informant Monoj Baruah, Welfare Officer of Dhulapadung Tea Estate, lodged an FIR on 15.08.2011, before the Officer-In-Charge, Rangapara Police Station, stating inter alia that on 14.08.2011, at about 09:30 pm, one Marshal Kujur, resident of Line No. 15, Moinajuli Division of Dhulapadung Tea Estate
It is settled law that evidence of hostile witnesses can also be relied upon by prosecution to extent to which it supports prosecution version of incident.
Point of Law : conviction cannot be based on the evidence of hostile witnesses and their testimony has to be discarded and the infirm witnesses cannot corroborate each other.
The prosecution must prove the case for murder beyond reasonable doubt, and lack of supporting evidence can lead to the benefit of doubt for the accused.
Once prosecution has brought home evidence of presence of accused at scene of crime, then onus stood shifted on defence to have brought-forth suggestions as to what could have brought them to spot in....
The court upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC, affirming that related witnesses' testimonies are credible and sufficient for establishing direct involvement in the crime.
The court established that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to prove guilt, and the failure of the appellant to explain the injuries sustained by the deceased led to conviction unde....
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
