Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
Firdus Ali @ Rashidul Islam S/o Abdul Khaleque Sk – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.
2. This criminal appeal was registered on receipt of a petition of appeal from the appellant, namely, Firdus Ali @ Rashidul Islam, who is serving out his sentence in the District Jail, Dhubri.
3. The appellant has impugned the judgment and order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilasipara in Sessions Case No.69/2019, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for three months. The appellant was also convicted under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code for the said offence. The appellant was also convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs
The conviction under Section 376 was set aside due to lack of substantive evidence, emphasizing the necessity of corroborative evidence in sexual assault cases.
The statement of a deceased victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence and cannot solely support a conviction; the prosecution must prove the victim's age and provide corrobor....
The credibility of witness testimony is critical; inconsistent statements undermine the establishment of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Limitations of using a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as substantive evidence, and the legal position on establishing guilt under Section 375 IPC.
Inconsistencies in a witness's statements can lead to a failure of the prosecution's case, necessitating acquittal.
The conviction for kidnapping and rape was upheld based on the reliable testimony of the victim, who was underage, making consent irrelevant.
Consent of minors is not legally relevant; the offence of rape established through credible victim testimony and corroborative evidence.
The Court clarified the distinction between kidnapping and abduction, emphasizing the necessity of proving intent and compulsion in the offense.
The prosecution must prove that a minor was induced to engage in illicit intercourse for a conviction under section 366A, which was not established in this case.
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
