Back
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Arman Ali S/o Late Mokbul Ali – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Medhi , J.
The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against a judgment dated 16.12.2023 and order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar at Silchar in Sessions Case No. 125/2018. Vide the impugned judgment, 3 nos. of accused persons have been convicted under Sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo for life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default further simple imprisonment for 3 months. The present appeal has been preferred by two nos. of appellants, namely, Arman Ali and Lukman Ali.
2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 07.04.2017 by the PW1, who is the wife of the victim Amir Ali. It has been alleged that on the previous evening at about 07:00 PM, the accused no. 1 Ramjan Ali had came to their house and took her husband Amir Ali to his house and after about 15 minutes the screams of the husband could be heard from the house of the accused persons. She accordingly rushed and saw the accused person no. 2, Arman Ali pulling a bloodied dagger out of the abdomen of her husband and accused Ra
In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a continuous chain linking the accused to the crime, and mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 302 IPC based on credible eyewitness testimony and established that the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The conviction for murder was upheld based on substantial eyewitness testimony and evidence of motive, affirming the principle that direct evidence substantiates a guilty verdict beyond reasonable do....
Conviction in criminal trials requires proof beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for a guilty verdict.
If the deceased had died on the previous day then it cannot be believed that the informant i.e. the PW-5 and the other members of the family including the PW-1 were not aware of the actual incident.
A conviction for murder can be sustained based on the credible testimony of a single eyewitness, corroborated by medical evidence and circumstantial facts establishing motive.
The judgment emphasizes the significance of circumstantial evidence, the reversed burden on the accused to explain incriminating circumstances, and the duty of the accused to offer a plausible explan....
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
