Back
MARLI VANKUNG, KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
Sh. Singngaihsuta – Appellant
Versus
State of Mizoram – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Marli Vankung, J.
Heard Mr. T. Lalzekima, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant Singngaihsuta in Crl.A. No. 4/2023(J) and Mr. F. Lalengliana, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant Pausawmthanga in Crl.A. No. 5/2023(J) along with Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Both the criminal appeals are for setting aside the Judgment and order dated 16.06.2020 and the sentence order dated 19.06.2020 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Champhai in Sessions case No. 88 of 2016 A/o Crl. TR No. 818 of 2016 wherein the appellant Singngaihsuta in Crl.A No. 4/2022(J) was convicted under sections 302/354A/436/506IPC and the appellant Pausawmthanga in Crl.A No.5/2022(J) was convicted under sections 302/436/34 IPC. Both the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 800/-each, in default S.I for a period of 7 months. Since both the criminal appeals are arising out of the same Judgment and order they are considered together.
2. Brief facts of the case is that on 30.11.2015 at around 6:00 AM, Mrs. Haulamchingi, resident of Vengthar, Champhai, lodged a written First Information Report (FI
Conviction cannot be based on suspicion alone, and circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt must result in acquittal.
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and conclusive chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a complete chain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with no alternative explanations.
Conviction in criminal trials requires proof beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for a guilty verdict.
The court ruled that inconsistencies in dying declarations and inadequate evidence undermine a murder conviction, emphasizing the need for reliable corroboration.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on dying declarations and witness testimonies to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC.
Conviction under Section 302, IPC requires conclusive circumstantial evidence, which must not be capable of alternative explanations.
Point of Law : Duty of the trial court to put the substance of all the incriminating circumstances to the accused by framing specific and separate question on each incriminating evidence brought on r....
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
