Back
LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR, MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
Azizul Hoque @ Batchu Dhubri, Assam – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam, rep. By PP, Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.)
1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant who is led by Mr. H. R. A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel. Also heard Dr. B. N. Gogoi, Amicus Curiae as well as Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.
2. This Jail Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilasipara in Sessions Case No. 02/2018, whereby the present appellant, namely, Azizul Hoque @ Batchu was convicted under Section 392/302/201 of IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 302 of IPC. He was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-in default to undergo another 6 months rigorous imprisonment under Section 392 of IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months under Section 201 of the IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The facts relevant for adjudic
Statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence, however, it may be used for purpose of corroborating substantive evidence.
Provisions of Section 106 of Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within knowledge of a person, burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Value of evidence as to confession depends on reliability of witness who gives evidence.
It is a settled legal proposition that conviction of a person accused of committing an offence, is generally based solely on evidence that is either oral or documentary, but in exceptional circumstan....
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence that excludes every reasonable hypothesis except guilt; suspicion alone is insufficient for conviction.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a continuous chain linking the accused to the crime, and mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, caution against relying solely on the testimony of a hostile witness, and the absence of conclusive evidence poi....
The importance of proving guilt beyond all reasonable doubt in cases relying on circumstantial evidence.
Point of Law : Offence of Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Prosecution is required not only to prove circumstances but also to complete chain of circumstances on basis of which guilt of accused can....
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
