Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, KAKHETO SEMA
Md Jamaluddin Majumdar @ Budul Mian S/o Haji Saraafat Ali – Appellant
Versus
C.B.I. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction based on confessions and witness testimonies requires corroboration. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual account of the abduction and the context leading to the investigation. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. legal arguments challenging the admissibility and weight of evidence against the accused. (Para 44 , 48 , 54 , 56) |
| 4. court's observations regarding the principles governing accomplice testimonies. (Para 52 , 58 , 66) |
JUDGMENT :
SK Medhi, J.
All the four appeals arise from a common judgment and order dated 04.08.2016 passed in Sessions Case No. 227(K)/2006 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. Since these appeals were heard together, those are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The appeals have been preferred under Section 374 of the Cr.PC and by the impugned judgment, the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for under Section 120(B) read with Section 364A of the IPC and also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-; to undergo life imprisonment under Sections 302 /34 of the IPC, 8 years RI and a fine of Rs.5000/- for conviction under Sections 395 /397 of the IPC, 7 years RI and a fine of Rs.5000/- f
In criminal law, accomplice testimonies must be corroborated by independent evidence for conviction; mere witness hostility does not invalidate supportive testimony.
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.
Confessions made voluntarily and without pressure under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. are admissible as evidence.
In child murder via circumstantial evidence, conviction upheld on last seen (digital media), disclosures to bones/slab recoveries; death commuted to natural life as State failed to prove no reformati....
The conviction of the appellants for murder and conspiracy was upheld based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a common intention to kill for financial gain through witchcraft.
Provisions of Section 106 of Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within knowledge of a person, burden of proving that fact is upon him.
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
