Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Sanjay Kumar Medhi, Yarenjungla Longkumer
Arun Tanti S/o. Lt. Dasarath Tanti – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam Rep. by PP, Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT & ORDER :
S.K. Medhi, J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred from jail against a judgment and order dated 09.03.2022 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Biswanath Chariali in Sessions Case No. 44/2019 registered under Section 302 of the IPC [corresponding to Section 103 of the BNS] with R.I. for life and a fine of Rs.5,000/-.
2. The incident is one of fratricide whereby the allegation is against the appellant of killing his own brother.
3. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 30.10.2018 by one Bhabananda Tanti (PW-2), who is the brother of both the appellant and the deceased. He had narrated that on the previous day, i.e., 29.10.2018 at about 9 pm, there was a quarrel on some domestic matter which led to attack by the appellant on his brother in the quarters with an axe resulting in grievous injury whereby the deceased had died instantaneously. The said Ejahar was registered as Biswanath P.S. Case No. 266/2018 under Section 302 IPC [corresponding to Section 103 of the BNS] and investigation was done in which the statements of the relevant witnesses were recorded, the sketch map prepared, post-mortem done, and all other steps were taken le
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances leading to the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and suspicion alone cannot....
Circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain leading to guilt; the absence of direct evidence does not negate conviction if circumstantial evidence is compelling.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a continuous chain linking the accused to the crime, and mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
The conviction was primarily based on circumstantial evidence, requiring the accused to provide a cogent explanation for the incriminating circumstances, which he failed to do.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain leading to the only conclusion of guilt, supported by credible witness testimonies and admissions by the accused.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt through an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
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 court ruled that circumstantial evidence must establish an unbroken chain of events to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence that excludes every reasonable hypothesis except guilt; suspicion alone is insufficient for conviction.
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
