Back
LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR, MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
Matiram Munda @ Matkam Munda, S/o. Lt. Sankar Munda – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Sarma, learned Amicus Curiae representing the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
2. This Criminal Appeal (J) has been registered under Section 374(2) of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on filing of an appeal petition by the appellant, Shri Matiram Munda @ Matkam Munda, through the Superintendent, District Jail, Diphu impugning the Judgment dated 13.03.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi-Anglong, Diphu in Sessions Case No. 54/2010 (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 201/2009 and Bakalia Police Station Case No. 35/2009), whereby the present appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for 2(two) months.
3. The learned Sessions Judge, Karbi-Anglong, Diphu, in the impugned Judgment, has come to the finding of the guilt of the present appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence as well as on the basis that the appellant has failed to discharge his burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evi
Point of Law : Even sub-clause (4) of Section 164 Cr.P.C. clearly indicates that such confession must be recorded in the manner provided under Section 281 Cr.P.C.
The court established that circumstantial evidence, when unbroken and corroborated by confession, can lead to a conviction for murder, emphasizing the burden of proof on the accused.
Provisions of Section 164 Cr.P.C must be complied with not only in form, but in essence.
A confessional statement made voluntarily and corroborated by other evidence can be relied upon for conviction even if it is retracted during the trial.
(1) Non-examination of Investigating Officer in all cases does not render prosecution case vulnerable.(2) There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on sole testimony of a single witness pro....
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires substantial corroboration, particularly with confessions, where voluntariness and trustworthiness must be proven to avoid wrongful convictions.
The court relied on circumstantial evidence, the credibility of witnesses, and the nature of the injuries to establish the guilt of the accused under IPC 302.
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
