Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Marli Vankung, Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Ludhiya Surin – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam Rep. By PP – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant convicted for infanticide (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the incident and testimonies (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. post-mortem findings corroborate cause of death (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. arguments regarding implication and confession (Para 17 , 18 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. legal analysis of admissions made under section 313 cr.p.c. (Para 19) |
| 6. arguments reinforcing prosecution's case (Para 22 , 24 , 25) |
| 7. court's analysis of circumstantial evidence (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 8. dismissal of appeal and affirmation of conviction (Para 43 , 44) |
| 9. final dismissal of the appeal. (Para 46) |
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Medhi, J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred from jail against the judgment and order dated 14.03.2019 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Sessions Case No. 245/2017 (GR Case No. 1064/2017) corresponding to Jamuguri P.S. Case No. 35/2017 convicting the appellant under Sections 302 /201 IPC [corresponding to Section 103 /238 of BNS ] and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 30
Conviction for murder upheld based on circumstantial evidence and voluntary confessions, highlighting the necessity of proving intent in homicide cases.
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.
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 conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires an unbroken chain of events leading to the sole conclusion of guilt, with no room for reasonable doubt.
The distinction between culpable homicide and murder lies in the nature and intent of the assault; insufficient evidence can lead to conviction modification.
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.
The court established that circumstantial evidence, when unbroken and corroborated by confession, can lead to a conviction for murder, emphasizing the burden of proof on 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
