Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
N.UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
Md. Jahidul Islam @ Khan, S/o. Sukur Ali Khan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Heard Mr. M. U. Mondal, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State.
2. The present appeal has been instituted assailing the Judgment dated 12-09-2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Goalpara, in Sessions Case No.143/2011, convicting the appellant, herein, under Section 328 IPC and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 (five) years along with payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for another 6 (six) months.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that one Maza Sheikh of village Simlabari in the district of Goalpara had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge Lakhipur P.S on 29.05.2010. The said FIR was registered as Lakhipur P.S Case No.149/2010 under Sections 328/457/380 IPC. In the said FIR, it was alleged that after breaking open the door of the house of the informant, the appellant, herein, who had administered stupefying substance to the informant and his family members making them loose their senses, along with 2 other co-accused committed theft in respect of some jewelry articles inc
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant administered a stupefying substance with intent to cause injury, leading to the acquittal.
Conviction under Section 328 of the IPC requires corroborative medical evidence; mere oral testimony is insufficient.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, including the need for concrete evidence and consistency in the c....
Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence; mere suspicion or non-explanation of conduct is insufficient for establishing guilt.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC since the accused was found fit to stand trial, and the defense of unsoundness of mind was not substantiated.
The court affirmed conviction under Sections 448 and 323 of IPC, citing insufficient evidence for rape charge under Section 376, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence.
The prosecution must establish the evidence beyond reasonable doubt for conviction; any acquittal based on insufficient evidence is justifiable under law.
When the essential material facts are disclosed in the material at Exhibit P4/FIR, but FIR is not a substantive evidence and it cannot be used to contradict the testimony of the eye-witnesses except ....
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
