THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, BUDI HABUNG
Rabhidhan @ Rabidhan Chakma S/o Lt. Bhagya Kr. Chakma – Accused/Convict Through; Mrs. Bini Chakma – Appellant
Versus
State of Arunachal Pradesh, represented by the Addl. P.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Budi Habung, J.
Heard Mr. Tabit Tapak, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr.Gyati Tado, learned Additional Prosecutor for the State respondent No.1.
2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.05.2021 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Tirap, Changlang & Longding at Khonsa, whereby the accused was convicted in Khonsa Sessions Case No. 191/2019, corresponding to Diyun P.S. Case No. 24/1999, under Sections 302 , 380, and 201 of the IPC. The appellant was sentenced as follows:
i. To undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) for the offence under Section 302 IPC;
ii. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) for the offence of theft in a dwelling house under Section 380 IPC;
iii. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) for the offence under Section 201 IPC, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months in addition to said sentences.
It was further ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that o
Naresh Kumar Sharma v. State of West Bengal
Amir Hamja v. State of Assam reported in
Subramania Goundan v. State of Madras
A conviction cannot solely rely on a retracted confession without corroborative evidence; circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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....
The admissibility and truthfulness of confessional statements, the fair examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and the requirement for corroborative evidence to establish guilt beyond ....
The court upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC, emphasizing that the absence of premeditation and the nature of the incident fell within Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.
The court established that a sole confessional statement from a co-accused cannot be the basis for a conviction without corroborating evidence; the absence of eyewitnesses and substantial proof resul....
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and circumstantial evidence needs a complete chain indicating the accused's guilt; extra-judicial confessions require corroboration and cannot so....
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires substantial corroboration, particularly with confessions, where voluntariness and trustworthiness must be proven to avoid wrongful convictions.
It is a settled legal proposition that conviction of a person accused of committing an offence, is generally based solely on evidence that is either oral or documentary, but in exceptional circumstan....
The court established that mere suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt, especially in circumstantial evidence cases.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.