Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MANASH RANJAN PATHAK, ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
Md. Iqbal, S/o. Shri Aziz Mohammad – Appellant
Versus
State Of AP, Through the Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. circumstantial evidence must establish solid links. (Para 2) |
| 2. prosecution based on fir and circumstantial evidence. (Para 3) |
| 3. defense argues lack of direct evidence. (Para 4) |
| 4. state establishes relationship between the accused and victim. (Para 5) |
| 5. analysis of circumstantial evidence required. (Para 6) |
| 6. prosecution must prove unbroken chain of circumstances. (Para 7) |
| 7. acquittal due to lack of conclusive evidence. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT :
(Arun Dev Choudhury, J.)
1. Heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. T Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.
2. The challenge:
The present criminal appeal is filed against the Judgment dated 07.02.2023 and order of sentence dated 08.02.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bomdila, West Kameng District in Session Case No. 03/2022, wherein and whereby, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 /201 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- for committing offence under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment of 5 (five) years for committing offence under Section 201 IPC and fine of Rs. 5,000/-and in default to
Circumstantial evidence must provide a complete and unbroken chain conclusively establishing the accused's guilt; gaps in evidence require acquittal.
The court held that mere suspicion is insufficient for a conviction; a complete chain of circumstantial evidence is required to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Point of law :Circumstantial evidence - prosecution must prove all the circumstances connecting unbroken chain of links leading to only one inference that the accused committed the crime. If any othe....
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Point of law:Acquital upheld - If the trial court takes a view that the accused deserves to be acquitted on the basis of evidence on record, such verdict cannot be reversed unless there is gross perv....
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, with a complete chain of evidence and the exclusion of every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.
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.
Appeals against acquittal warrant interference only if trial findings perverse or impossible; circumstantial case fails without complete chain excluding innocence, as here due to witness inconsistenc....
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
