Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
Maheswar Mali S/o- Late Saona Ram Mali – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Gauhati High Court – Respondent
JUDGMENT & ORDER :
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
Heard Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. T. Gogoi, learned Counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent and Mr. B. M. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the private respondents.
2. This appeal is preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment & order dated 13.12.2012 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, (F.T.C.), Kamrup, Rangia (hereinafter referred to as the “trial Court”) in Session Case No. 38(K)/2007, whereby the accused persons/private respondents were acquitted from the charge under Section 498(A)/306 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 07.09.2004 the appellant lodged an FIR before the jurisdictional police station alleging inter alia that on 11.02.2004 his daughter Smti. Mintu Das Deka (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) was married to the accused person/respondent No.2 and after a few days of marriage she was subjected to torture by the accused persons/private respondents. It was f
The presumption of abetment under Section 113(A) of the Evidence Act requires evidence of cruelty, which was not established in this case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in cases of acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for reliable evidence linking alleged cruelty to suicide.
The judgment emphasized the presumption of innocence, the principles for interference with a judgment of acquittal, and the need for trustworthy evidence to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must provide clear evidence of instigation or connection to establish charges of cruelty and abetment of suicide under IPC; mere allegations are insufficient.
Court emphasized the necessity of establishing clear evidence of cruelty to invoke presumption of abetment of suicide under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, reinforcing the presumption of innocence ....
The presumption of innocence, the need for clear evidence to prove guilt, and the reluctance to disturb a finding of acquittal unless it is perverse or unsustainable in law.
The presumption of abetment under Section 113A of the Evidence Act does not apply automatically; the prosecution must prove cruelty to establish guilt under Sections 306 and 498A IPC.
The appellate court upheld the trial Court's acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the necessity for compelling evidence to overturn such decisions.
In appeals against acquittal, the presumption of innocence prevails, requiring clear evidence of instigation or cruelty for a conviction under IPC sections concerning abetment of suicide.
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
