Back
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Mustak Mian @ Butan, S/o. Late Israil Mian – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The above named sole appellant has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence dated 07/08.05.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Hazaribag in Sessions Trial No.336 of 2013 (arising out of Churchu P.S. Case No.03 of 2013 corresponding to G.R Case No.947 of 2013) whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life along with fine of Rs.1 Lakh with default stipulation.
3. The facts of the case as depicted in the F.I.R. instituted on the basis of fardbayan of one Nuruddin Ansari (P.W.-2) stating inter alia that his daughter Gulshan Ara Khatoon (since deceased) was married with Mustak Mian @ Butan (appellant) in the year 2011. It is further alleged that after solemnization of marriage informant’s daughter went to her matrimonial home and lived there properly for six months, thereafter, informant came to know that his son-in-law in some pretext or other used to assault his daughter and frequently stop giving food to her. The informant’s daughter was any how surviving at her matrimonial ho
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence and the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, emphasizing the accused's failure to provide an alibi.
The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fac....
The judgment establishes the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The application of Section 106 of t....
The trial Court's failure to put material circumstances to the accused during examination under Section 313 of the CrPC constituted a serious irregularity, warranting the acquittal of the appellant o....
The prosecution must establish basic facts before invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act; failure to do so results in the benefit of doubt for the accused.
(1) Courts are expected to be sensitive in cases involving crime against women.(2) Burden of proof – Ordinary rule that applies to criminal trials that onus lies on prosecution to prove guilt of accu....
The burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act places a duty on the accused to offer a plausible explanation for the circumstances of the crime, especially in cases of circumstantial evide....
The court affirmed that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the accused's failure to explain facts within their knowledge can lead to a presumption of guilt under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
The prosecution must discharge its primary burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act in criminal cases requires careful consideration.
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
