MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, MALASRI NANDI
Jhakari Chouhan, S/o. Late Lakshan Chouhan – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam, Represented by the PP, Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M. Zothankhuma, J.
Heard Ms. M. Barman, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant in Crl.A.(J) 87/2020 and Mr. N. Deka, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant in Crl.A.(J) 88/2020. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent.
2. The two appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 08.01.2020 and 22.01.2020, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu in Sessions Case 76/2017, by which the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/201/34 IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months under Sections 302/34 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year with a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default simple imprisonment for 1 (one) month under Sections 201/34 IPC, on being found guilty of having committed the murder of the deceased wife by hanging the wife of the appellant in Crl.A.(J) 88/2020 with a saree. Thereafter, the dead body was burnt/cremated by the appellants within two hours.
3. The appellant in Crl.A.(J) 87/2020 is the father of the appella
Dinesh Kumar Kalidas Patel vs. State of Gujarat
Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
The judgment established the principle of presumption of innocence, the requirement for reliable evidence, and the need to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
In criminal cases, when evidence is contradictory and two views are possible, the view pointing to the innocence of the accused must be adopted. The failure of the prosecution to explain a delay in t....
An offence like murder committed inside secrecy of a house, initial burden to establish case would undoubtedly be upon prosecution.
The admissibility and credibility of dying declarations and witness testimony are crucial in determining guilt in criminal cases.
The conviction for murder was upheld based on substantial eyewitness testimony and evidence of motive, affirming the principle that direct evidence substantiates a guilty verdict beyond reasonable do....
The burden of proof in a criminal case lies on the prosecution, but in cases of circumstantial evidence, the burden on the accused to provide a cogent explanation is lighter. Motive and conduct are r....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion alone is insufficient for conviction.
The conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld based on circumstantial evidence, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The admissibility of dying declarations without a certification of the victim's mental state and the reliance on circumstantial evidence in establishing guilt.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, especially in cases relying on circumstantial evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.