Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Vijay Bishnoi, Suman Shyam, JJ.
Hongro Ngotan S/o Late Pongwa Ngotan - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of AP through the Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Crl.A(J) No. 13 of 2023
Decided On : 09-04-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case outlined. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. sufficient charges necessitate a definitive proof of guilt. (Para 5) |
| 3. trial court's conviction and sentencing established. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. defense arguments on circumstantial evidence presented. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. prosecution's reliance on evidence and counterarguments. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. legal standards regarding circumstantial evidence were emphasized. (Para 17 , 18 , 21) |
| 7. judgment conclusion on acquittal for ipc offences and maintained for arms act. (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
1.Heard Ms. N. Anju, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.
2. This Criminal Appeal (Jail) is filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the judgment dated 09.03.2020 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tirap, Changlang and Longding, at Khosa, Arunachal Pradesh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Trial Court”) in Khonsa Sessions Case No.25/2019, whereby the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 /436 and 201 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC) read with Section 25(1B)(a) of ARMS ACT and sentenced him vide order dated 16.03.2020 in the following manner:
Under Section | Sentence |
302 IPC | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC and in default in payment of the fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further imprisonment for 2(two) months. |
436 IPC | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 14 years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 436 IPC and in default in payment of the fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for two months. |
201 IPC | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07 years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 201 IPC and in default in payment of the fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for 1(one) month. |
25(1B)(a) of ARMS ACT | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under Section 25(1B)(a) of ARMS ACT and in default in payment of the fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for 15 days. |
3. The brief facts of the case are that PW-1, Smt. Ponglung Ngotan, had lodged a written complaint at Police Station Changlang on 06.03.2014 alleging that on 05.03.2014, at about 7:20 P.M., the appellant had brutally assaulted his father, Shri Pongwa Ngotan and on account of that his father succumbed to the injuries on the spot. It was further alleged that after the beating incident, the appellant set fire to his house due to which the house was completely burnt and damaged. It was prayed that the appellant be apprehended immediately.
4. On receiving the said complaint, the police registered Changlang Police Station FIR No.07/2014 under Sections 302 /436/201 IPC against the appellant and started investigation. After completion of the investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 /436/201 IPC read with Section 25(1B)(a)/28 of ARMS ACT .
5. The learned Trial Court framed charges against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 /436/201 IPC read with Section 25(1B)(a) of ARMS ACT .
6. During the course of trial, the prosecution produced as many as 13 witnesses and also exhibited certain documents. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein he pleaded innocence but did not produce any evidence in defence.
7. The learned Trial Court, after analyzing the evidence available on record, convicted the accused/appellant vide impugned judgment dated 09.03.2020 and sentenced him vide order dated 16.03.2020, as described in the earlier part of this judgment.
8. Ms. N. Anju, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused/appellant has vehemently argued that the lear
AI
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 continuous chain linking the accused to the crime, and mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
The importance of credible eyewitness testimony, reliable and clinching evidence, and the exclusion of every possible hypothesis except guilt in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and coherent chain of events that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
In circumstantial evidence cases, a complete chain of evidence must be established to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, regardless of the presence of motive.
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
