KALYAN RAI SURANA, N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
Bajum Sidasow W/o Late Govinda Regisow – Appellant
Versus
State of Arunachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
1. Heard Ms. Nikita Danggen, learned amicus curiae, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Ms. Topi Jini, learned Addl. P.P. Arunachal Pradesh, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1.
2. The instant appeal has been instituted, assailing the judgment & order, dated 24.07.2020, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, West Kameng District, Bomdila, in Sessions Case No. 69/2015, arising out of Rupa Police Station Case No. 39/2014, convicting the appellant, herein, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing her to undergo imprisonment for life, out of which, a period of 2(two) years was directed to be spent under rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant, herein, was further directed to undergo further detention for 3 months in custody.
3. The brief facts leading to the institution of the present proceeding, is as under:
Kaliram v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
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.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain conclusively proving guilt; failure to provide plausible explanations by the accused strengthens the case for conviction.
A conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code requires credible evidence beyond reasonable doubt, including corroborative evidence when relying on confessions or weapon recovery.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and a conviction cannot be based solely on the recovery of a murder weapon without corroborative evidence.
(1) Murder – If in a case based on circumstantial evidence, accused evades response to an incriminating question or offers a response which is not true, such a response, in itself, would become an ad....
The court upheld the conviction under IPC Section 302, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt without the accused providing an adeq....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden shifts to the accused to explain circumstances within their knowledge, especially when ....
The necessity of establishing a complete chain of circumstantial evidence for conviction, while noting the absence of motive and procedural failures in prosecution.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, caution against relying solely on the testimony of a hostile witness, and the absence of conclusive evidence poi....
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.