Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Yarenjungla Longkumer, Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Dhrubajyoti Borah S/O. Lt. Mintu Borah – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam Rep. By PP – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Medhi, J.
The instant appeal has been preferred from jail under Section 302 /201 IPC (corresponding to Sections 103 /238 BNS ) against the judgment and order dated 09.05.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Sessions Case No. 210/2018; sentencing the appellant to undergo RI for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d SI for 06 months under Section 302 IPC (corresponding to Section 103 BNS ). RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/- i/d SI for 2 months.
2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 25.06.2018 by one Jiban Borah, who was examined as PW 1. He had alleged that his sister was killed on the previous night by the appellant who is her son. Based on the aforesaid Ejahar, the FIR was registered leading to Tezpur PS case number 1326/2018 under Sections 302 /201 of the IPC (corresponding to Sections 103 /238 BNS ) and the investigation had begun in which the police had arrested the appellant, the murder weapon was seized, statements of the witnesses were recorded, the beheaded body as well as the severed head were recovered and sent for post-mortem after inquest was done and after completion of all the other formalities, the charge
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.
Conviction for murder upheld based on circumstantial evidence and voluntary confessions, highlighting the necessity of proving intent in homicide cases.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances leading to the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and suspicion alone cannot....
The burden of proving unsoundness of mind as a defence lies with the accused, and must be established at the time of the offence, which was not satisfied in this case.
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 chain leading to the only conclusion of guilt, supported by credible witness testimonies and admissions by the accused.
A defendant can assert a mental illness defense under Section 84 of the IPC, and the prosecution must provide sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt to counteract this claim.
The court ruled that circumstantial evidence must establish an unbroken chain of events to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
There was no eye witness as to actual assault on body of deceased which lead to her death and as such, it can be said that conviction of appellant is based on circumstantial evidence.
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
