Back
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, MITALI THAKURIA, JJ
ABDUL HAMID – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts supporting the conviction were presented but lacked substantial evidence. (Para 3 , 5 , 28) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding the unreliability of victim's testimony and evidence. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 3. court discussed the implications of dna evidence on proving allegations. (Para 30 , 36) |
| 4. court found conviction was erroneous due to lack of foundational evidence. (Para 41) |
| 5. final judgment of acquittal based on the deficiencies in prosecution's case. (Para 42) |
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
(M. Thakuria, J)
1. Heard Ms. S.S. Zia, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent.
2. This is an appeal u/s 415 BNSS challenging the judgment & order dated 30.09.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Nagaon, Assam in Special Case No. 54(N)/2021, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence u/s 376(3) IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and thereby sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation.
3. The brief facts leading to the present appeal is that on 28.05.2021 the respondent no. 2 lodged an FIR before
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
