IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MANISH CHOUDHURY, YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
Kutu Telipathar – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
1. This criminal appeal from Jail under Section 383 , Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘the Code’ and/or ‘CrPC’ for short] is directed against a Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2019 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Dima Hasao, Haflong in Sessions Case no. 01/2017 [corresponding to G.R. Case No. 64/2016]. By the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2019, the learned Sessions Judge, Dima Hasao, Haflong has convicted the appellant under Section 302 , INDIAN PENAL CODE [IPC] after finding him guilty of uxoricide and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
2. The investigation was set into motion on lodgment of a First Information Report [FIR] before the Officer In-Charge, Maibang Police Station on 31.10.2016 by the informant, Asha Kurmi [P.W.1]. In the FIR, the informant-P.W.1 had inter alia alleged that at about 10-00 p.m. on 30.10.2016, the accused-appellant had inhumanly tortured her daughter, Baby Telepathar [the deceased] who was the wife of the appellant, and caused injuries on her head and other parts of h
A.N. Venkatesh and another vs. State of Karnataka
Prakash Chand vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Credible eyewitness testimony can sustain a conviction for uxoricide even against conflicting medical evidence, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The testimony of a sole eyewitness can sustain a murder conviction if credible, consistent with medical evidence, and unshaken by cross-examination.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between murder under Section 302 IPC and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, based on the sudd....
Circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain leading to guilt; the absence of direct evidence does not negate conviction if circumstantial evidence is compelling.
The conviction based on the testimony of a sole injured eyewitness is valid if the testimony is credible and minor discrepancies do not overshadow the overall evidence supporting the charges of murde....
The importance of credible eyewitness testimony, reliable and clinching evidence, and the exclusion of every possible hypothesis except guilt in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court reiterated that suspicion alone cannot replace proof, and the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in circumstantial cases.
Conviction under Section 302 cannot rest on sole eyewitness testimony riddled with contradictions, delay in naming accused, medical inconsistencies, and unnatural conduct; prosecution must prove guil....
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, all links in the evidence chain must be established beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder, emphasizing the consistency of eyewitness accounts as reliable evidence supporting the charges under Sections 302 and 9(b) of the Indian Penal Code.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.