IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, KARDAK ETE
Jyotish Buragohain Sibsagar, Assam – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam Rep. By PP, Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Medhi, J.
The instant appeal has been preferred from jail against the judgment and order dated 27.02.2020 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Charaideo, Sonari in Sessions Case No. 266(S-C)/17 (GR Case No.373/17) convicting and sentencing the appellant u/s-302 IPC with imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/-.
2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 03.07.2017 by the brother of the deceased (PW-9), wherein it was stated that on the previous day i.e., 02.07.2017 at about 7.00 pm, the appellant had caused the death of his wife by hacking with a sharp weapon and when he had brought the body to the nearby forest to bury the same on 03.07.2017 at about 7.30 am, the public had noticed and accordingly, the appellant was apprehended. Based on the aforesaid Ejahar, the case was registered and investigation was made in which the statements of the witnesses were recorded, inquest made, sketch maps prepared which led to laying of the charge sheet before the learned Trial Court.
3. The learned Court had accordingly framed the charges and on denial of the same, the trial had begun in which the prosecution had adduced evidence through 10 nos. of prosecuti
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt through an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence; 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.
Circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confessions can sustain a murder conviction, provided they form a complete chain, even without eyewitness testimony.
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence excluding all reasonable hypotheses of innocence; extrajudicial confessions need corroboration to be reliable.
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....
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 absence of direct evidence and incomplete circumstantial proof precludes conviction, emphasizing that suspicion cannot substitute for conclusive evidence in a criminal trial.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a continuous chain linking the accused to the crime, and mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
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 circumstantial evidence requires an unbroken chain of events leading to the sole conclusion of guilt, with no room for reasonable doubt.
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.