Back
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, BUDI HABUNG
Kedukhoyi S/o Shri Dzuveyi – Appellant
Versus
State of Nagaland – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
BUDI HABUNG, J.
1. Heard Mr. Sentiyanger, learned Legal Aid counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K. Angami, learned PP for the State of Nagaland.
2. This is a jail appeal preferred under section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 01.10.2004 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Phek, Nagaland in GR No. 27/2003 arising out of Phek PS Case No. 0012/2003 under section 302 & 376 IPC. By the said impugned judgment and order, the accused Shri. Kedukhoyi, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for offence under section 302 & 376 of IPC.
3. The brief facts of the case leading to the preferring of this Jail appeal is that on 18.05.2003, a written request for registration of the case was received by the Officer-in-Charge, PS, Phek from one Nuvotso of Kotisu village, inter-alia stating therein that on 17.05.2003, his wife Smti. Vesazolu (Deceased) went to the field and did not return. On search, her dead body was found 1 km away from the village on 18.05.2003 morning at around 6 am. On finding her dead body it was found that she had been raped and murdered because her dead body wa
The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt, following proper procedures for recording confessions, and adhering to statutory prov....
The admissibility and truthfulness of confessional statements, the fair examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and the requirement for corroborative evidence to establish guilt beyond ....
The court found the dying declarations credible, linking the accused's rape to the victim's suicide, justifying conviction under IPC Sections 376 and 306.
The court held that a retracted confession cannot solely establish guilt without independent corroboration, emphasizing the necessity for robust evidence in criminal convictions.
The court ruled that evidence must consistently establish guilt, and circumstantial evidence alone cannot justify a death sentence without clear and compelling justification for extreme culpability.
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.
Confessions made voluntarily and without pressure under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. are admissible as evidence.
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
