Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
Mohan Terang @ Mohan Teron Karbi Anglong, Diphu, Assam – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam Rep. By Pp, Assam – Respondent
Judgment :
Michael Zothankhuma, J.
1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel and Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, representing the State and Ms. K. Phukan, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent no. 2.
2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgement dated 10/02/2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu, in Sessions case No. 63/2019, by which the appellant has been convicted under section 302 IPC for killing his wife in front of his daughter. The appellant was thereafter sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, is that PW-1 submitted an FIR dated 17/07/2019 to the Officer-in-Charge, Dillai Police Station, stating that his daughter got married with the appellant (son-in-law) in the year 2011 and they had 3 (three) children. While they were living a happy and peaceful family life, a quarrel took place between his son-in-law and daughter around 4-30 a.m. on 17/07/2019, due to which the appellant hit the head of his daughter (deceased) with tw
The presence of eyewitness testimony and corroborating medical evidence can uphold a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC despite challenges regarding procedural discrepancies.
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 302 IPC, emphasizing the credibility of eyewitnesses and the premeditated nature of the appellant's actions.
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.
It is settled law that retaliation has to be proportionate to provocation.
Circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession, when corroborated by testimony, can support a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.
The court established that provocation must be grave and sudden to negate intent for murder, which was not satisfied in this case.
The court modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to causing grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC, finding no intent to kill.
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
