Back
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Sunil Manki Mura, S/o. Lt. Mithun Mura – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.K. MEDHI, J
The instant appeal has been preferred from jail under Section 383 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 10.07.2019 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) No.1, Margherita, Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 88(M)/16. By the aforesaid judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 302 IPC. The matter involves the alleged rape and killing of the daughter of the informant.
2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 26.08.2015 by the PW2- father of the victim. It was stated that on 8:00 pm on 25.08.2015, the daughter was found missing from the house and a search was made. In the morning, the appellant was suspected and questioned and he had confessed that in the previous night, he had lifted her from her house, took her to the cultivation field, forcibly committed rape on her in the bamboo grove and thereafter killed her on the bank of the river. It was also stated that the dead body of the girl was recovered and the police was informed.
3. Based on the aforesaid Ejahar, the formal FIR wa
The conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires an unbroken chain of events leading to the sole conclusion of guilt, with no room for reasonable doubt.
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence excluding all reasonable hypotheses of innocence; extrajudicial confessions need corroboration to be reliable.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain without breaks, and extrajudicial confessions require corroboration; benefit of doubt is given to the accused when evidence is insufficient.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere circumstantial evidence or suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
The absence of direct evidence and incomplete circumstantial proof precludes conviction, emphasizing that suspicion cannot substitute for conclusive evidence in a criminal trial.
Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and coherent chain of events that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and circumstantial evidence needs a complete chain indicating the accused's guilt; extra-judicial confessions require corroboration and cannot so....
Circumstantial evidence must be conclusive and extra-judicial confessions require corroboration; failure to meet these standards results in acquittal.
For a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a clear chain of evidence that excludes reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt.
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
