Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Michael Zothankhuma, Kaushik Goswami
Raju Bag @ Sanjay, S/O Late Birbal Bag – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam Represented By PP – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M. Zothankhuma, J.
1. Heard Ms. B. R. A. Sultana, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel/APP, Assam, assisted by Ms. R. Das, learned counsel.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 06.09.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge (FTC-2), Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 135(T)/2023, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for six months, for having murdered his wife.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that the Inspector Jyotish Goyary (Officer- in-Charge of Doomdooma P.S., Tinsukia), had submitted an FIR dated 05.06.2023 to the effect that on 05.06.2023 at around 8 AM, he heard that his elder sister Juliana Govin had died. On reaching his elder sister’s house, he found the dead body of his elder sister and also noticed injuries on different parts of her body and when he asked his brother-in-law, i.e., the appellant, the appellant stated that he had beaten up the deceased with his hands and sticks and upon bringing her home, she had died. Pursuant to the FIR,
The court ruled that reliance on police confessions for conviction is barred under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, necessitating complete circumstantial evidence for conviction.
Circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession, when corroborated by testimony, can support a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.
The burden of proof in a criminal case lies on the prosecution, but in cases of circumstantial evidence, the burden on the accused to provide a cogent explanation is lighter. Motive and conduct are r....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion alone 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.
Drunkenness does not absolve murder liability; intention to kill is assessed based on evidence, including circumstantial evidence of injuries indicating guilt.
The presence of eyewitness testimony and corroborating medical evidence can uphold a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC despite challenges regarding procedural discrepancies.
Circumstantial evidence, coupled with a lack of alibi or credible explanation from the appellant, sufficiently establishes guilt in a murder conviction under Section 302 IPC.
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
