Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
Makibar Rahman @ Mukibur Rahman, S/o. Late Moseb Ali – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Heard Mr. P Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. M Kumari, learned Standing counsel, CBI.
2. The challenge in the present criminal appeal is to the judgment dated 16.08.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam in Special Case No. 11/2005, convicting the appellant, herein, under Sections 419/420 IPC and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 (two) years for the offence under Section 419 IPC, Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (three) years along with fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand), in default, to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 (six) months for the offence under Section 420 IPC. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo 1 (one) year Rigorous Imprisonment under Sections 13(2)/13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. The CBI authorities had submitted a charge-sheet, being Charge-Sheet No. 5/2004, dated 07.01.2004, following investigations made in two cases, i.e., R.C. No. 5/E/2001-Cal and No.6/E/2001-Cal, which were registered by the CBI authorities on transfer to it of Paltan Bazar P.S.
The court emphasized that opinion evidence must be supported by substantial corroborating evidence in criminal trials to uphold a conviction, reaffirming the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyon....
The prosecution failed to prove the charges of forgery and conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt due to irregularities in evidence collection.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court must ....
The prosecution must prove entrustment and dishonest intent in offenses under sections 409 and 468 IPC, failure of which leads to acquittal.
Conviction for forgery and misappropriation requires clear proof of entrustment and intent to defraud, which was lacking, leading to acquittal.
The duty of the trial court to put each material circumstance to the accused and the requirement to seek an explanation from the accused regarding incriminating circumstances.
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
