Back
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
Kanaklata Das @ Kanakprabha W/o Late Nani Gopal Das – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(S.K. Medhi, J)
The instant appeal has been preferred by two appellants under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against judgment and order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj in Sessions Case No. 49/2017 convicting the accused/appellants u/s 302/34 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) i/d to undergo R.I. for 1 year. While the appellant no.1 is the mother, the appellant no.2 is her son. The appeal involves the death of the wife of the appellant no.2.
2 . The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an ejahar by one Bikramjit Das - PW3 on 11.11.2014. It has been alleged that on the previous day, i.e., 10.11.2014 at about 7.30 a.m., his sister, who was the wife of the appellant no.2 was killed by poisoning. It may however be mentioned that on 10.11.2014 itself, the appellant no.2 had lodged an information on the death of his wife in connection with which Patherkandi PS UD Case No. 19/2014 was registered. Be that as it may, both the cases were amalgamated and the instant case was registered under sections 498(A) / 302 / 304(B) / 34
Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence; mere suspicion or non-explanation of conduct is insufficient for establishing guilt.
Point of Law : Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reveals that whenever a Court desires to give judgment as to any legal right or liability depend on the existence of facts which he asserts....
Point of law: Conviction set aside – Murder case - duty is cast upon the prosecution to produce worthwhile evidence to establish the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a continuous chain linking the accused to the crime, and mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain leading to the only conclusion of guilt, supported by credible witness testimonies and admissions by the accused.
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence excluding all reasonable hypotheses of innocence; extrajudicial confessions need corroboration to be reliable.
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.
(1) Section 34 IPC and 115 IPC would not go hand in hand.(2) Evidence is raw material which Judge or Adjudicator uses to reach a finding of fact – Courts can record order of conviction even in a case....
Conviction in criminal trials requires proof beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for a guilty verdict.
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
