SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
Mainul Hussain @ Mainulali S/O- Mustafaalam – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Medhi, J.
The present appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 14.03.2022 passed by the learned District & Session Judge, Morigaon in Session Case No. 148/2015. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has sentenced the accused/appellant under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default further simple imprisonment of 3 years and also convict under Section 307 R/W 323 of IPC and convict under Section 201 of IPC the rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default further simple imprisonment of 3 months and convict under Section 120 (B) of IPC the rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-in default further simple imprisonment of 3 months and convict under Section 379 of IPC the rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default further simple imprisonment of 3 months.
2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar by PW2 on 22.07.2014 wherein, it was alleged that on 20.07.2014, at a
Brahm Swaroop and anr. vs State of UP reported in (2011) 6 SCC 288
Gangabhavani vs Rayapati Venkat Reddy reported in AIR 2013 SC 3681
Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi vs State of Gujarat reported in (2023) 9 SCC 164
Kalyan Barman vs State of Assam and Anr. reported in 2023 (4) GauLT 760
Nagendra Sah vs State of Bihar reported in (2021) 10 SCC 725
Neeraj vs State of UP [(2009) 0 Supreme(All) 62]
Pradeep Kumar vs State of Chattisgarh reported in (2023) 5 SCC 350
R. Sreenivasa vs State of Karnataka reported in 2023 0 AIR(SC) 4301
Sharad Biridhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116
Sivamani and Anr. vs State Represented by Inspector of Police [2023 INSC 1027]
The court ruled that circumstantial evidence must establish an unbroken chain of events to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a continuous chain linking the accused to the crime, and mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence that excludes every reasonable hypothesis except guilt; suspicion alone is insufficient for conviction.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction, especially in circumstantial cases.
Section 304 Part II IPC relates to punishment but without any intention to cause death.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.