Back
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
Salon Thausen Karbi Anglong, Assam – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(S.K. Medhi, J)
The instant appeal has been preferred from Jail against the judgment dated 17.06.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu in Sessions Case No. 309/2017 (New)/Sessions Case No. 97/2010 (Old). By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted u/s 323/302 of the IPC with R.I. for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, R.I. for 1 year and further a fine of Rs. 1000/- u/s 323 IPC in default, R.I. for 3 months.
2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 15.12.2009 by the PW4. It was stated that on the previous night at about 11.30 PM when the informant along with the deceased who was his maternal uncle were going to his house at Kheroni, the appellant had suddenly punched him on the right eye and thereafter assaulted the deceased with sharp weapon causing grievous injuries, as a result of which the deceased had expired in the Diphu Civil Hospital. Based on the Ejahar, an F.I.R. was registered and after completion of the investigation, formal charge sheet was filed. The charges were accordingly framed and on denial thereof the trial had begun.
3. In the trial, the prosecution had adduced evidence through 8 nos. o
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimony can lead to acquittal.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction, especially in circumstantial cases.
A conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC was adjusted to culpable homicide under Section 304 due to ambiguities in witness accounts and lack of intent, establishing a precedent for interpreting ....
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; unreliable eyewitness testimony, especially from near relatives, cannot substantiate a conviction.
The judgment establishes the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and in the absence of reliable evidence, the benefit of doubt must be given to....
A single reliable eyewitness can sustain a conviction, emphasizing the quality of evidence over quantity, even if the accused was not named in the F.I.R.
The reliability of an injured eye-witness testimony and its corroboration by medical evidence are crucial in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
A conviction cannot stand when there are significant contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, raising doubts about the prosecution's case.
Point of Law : prosecution has failed to establish the charge brought against the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
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
