Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Sanjay Kumar Medhi, Marli Vankung
Sajan Mura – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam Rep. By Pp, Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The present appeal has been preferred from jail against the judgment and order dated 20.09.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat, Assam in Sessions Case No. 170/2014 under Section 302 of the IPC [corresponding to Section 103 BNS ], thereby sentencing the appellant under Section 302 INDIAN PENAL CODE [corresponding to Section 103 BNS ] to undergo RI for life and fine of Rs. 15,000/. (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) in default, further imprisonment for six months.
2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 20.10.2014 by the PW1, who is the brother of the deceased. It was alleged that on the previous day i.e. 19.10.2014, the accused had assaulted his younger sister. He had also stated that prior to the said incident, the accused had been assaulting his younger sister since a month after their marriage. It has also been stated that the deceased was three months pregnant. On the said date at 9 P.M., the appellant had assaulted his younger sister again, due to which she had sustained grievous injuries. On receiving the said information, they went to see her and found her dead. It has been alleged, that after commission of the offense, t
The distinction between culpable homicide and murder lies in the nature and intent of the assault; insufficient evidence can lead to conviction modification.
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and circumstantial evidence needs a complete chain indicating the accused's guilt; extra-judicial confessions require corroboration and cannot so....
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires irrefutable proof establishing guilt, with no room for reasonable doubt.
The court held that acts committed under grave and sudden provocation may reduce the charge from murder to culpable homicide, emphasizing the absence of malicious intent.
Circumstantial evidence must be established beyond reasonable doubt; absence of eyewitnesses and contradictions in testimonies led to a modification of conviction from murder to culpable homicide not....
The judgment establishes the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act to shift the burden of proof to the accused in cases where they have special knowledge of the facts. It also affirms the ad....
The admissibility and evidentiary value of extra-judicial confessions, the need for corroboration, and the considerations for modifying a conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to ....
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain without breaks, and extrajudicial confessions require corroboration; benefit of doubt is given to the accused when evidence is insufficient.
Circumstantial evidence alone suffices for conviction if it forms an unbroken chain that excludes every possibility of innocence, alongside corroborative extra-judicial confessions.
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
