Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
Ajay Kuli S/O Lt. Debeswar Kuli – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
The content regarding Section 164 of the Cr.PC as provided in the document explains that statements recorded under this section are not considered substantive evidence but are primarily used for purposes such as corroboration or contradiction of witnesses. The statement aims to deter witnesses from changing their stance and to prevent immunity from prosecution. It is emphasized that such statements are not on oath and cannot be used as direct evidence to establish guilt. They are meant to be part of the overall evidentiary framework, and their reliability depends on the circumstances under which they are recorded. The statement's contents are scrutinized to assess the veracity of the prosecution’s case, but they do not alone form the basis for conviction unless supported by other evidence.
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Medhi, J.
The instant appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [Corresponding to Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] against the judgment dated 22.03.2023 and order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Majuli in Session Case No.07/2022 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 [Corresponding to Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 months.
2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 26.02.2022 by one Dashiram Pegu, who is the father of the deceased. It was stated that on the previous day, i.e., 25.02.2022, the deceased, who was his son, had gone to Selek village in the evening to pay wages to the labourers. While returning, he was stopped by a group of unknown youths who assaulted him in various parts of his body including his head and left him lying on the road. His son could eventually manage to find shelter in a house and sent information. As his condition was serious, he was taken to
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.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a continuous chain linking the accused to the crime, and mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
The court ruled that circumstantial evidence must establish an unbroken chain of events to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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.
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 establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
A conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and unbroken chain, with reasonable doubt favoring the accused.
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
