Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, BUDI HABUNG
Adungfa Jebisow S/o – Gandhi Jebisow – Appellant
Versus
State of Arunachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments of the appellant and prosecution. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. witness testimonies presented in court. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. principles governing circumstantial evidence. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. discussion on the intent and nature of accusations. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. conclusion on sufficiency of evidence. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. final decision and order of the court. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Budi Habung, J.
The present jail appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 21.12.2022, whereby the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and in default thereof, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months.
2. The facts leading to the conviction of the accused and the filing of the present jail appeal are that on 27.10.2021, PW-4, Shri Dilip Khaduju, lodged a written FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Bhalukpong Police Station, stating that he came to know from Shri Sitow Jebisow, Gaon Burah (PW-3), that Lukhi Das (the deceased), who was married to A
The conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC was upheld based on circumstantial evidence demonstrating a complete and unbroken chain leading to the appellant's guilt.
Murder conviction upheld on circumstantial evidence via complete chain: homicidal death, last seen together, false explanation, body concealment, corroborated confessions, medical proof of fatal inju....
In order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the gui....
The court held that acts committed under grave and sudden provocation may reduce the charge from murder to culpable homicide, emphasizing the absence of malicious intent.
The court relied on circumstantial evidence, the credibility of witnesses, and the nature of the injuries to establish the guilt of the accused under IPC 302.
Section 106 of the Evidence Act reads Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge – When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
The court established that sudden provocation can reduce a murder charge to manslaughter, particularly in domestic disputes.
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
