Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

Acquittal in Murder Case: Circumstantial Evidence Must Unerringly Point Towards Guilt: Gauhati High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Gauhati High Court acquitted Mohan Kumar, previously convicted for the murder of Padma Kumari and inflicting grievous injury on Binod Kumar. The bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Malasri Nandi overturned the earlier verdict, emphasizing the importance of conclusive circumstantial evidence in criminal cases.

The court observed, “To convict an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt each of incriminating circumstances on which it proposes to rely.” This observation came as the linchpin in Kumar’s acquittal, spotlighting the gaps in the prosecution’s case based on circumstantial evidence.

Mohan Kumar was initially convicted under Sections 302 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Baksa. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with additional fines. However, his appeal to the Gauhati High Court brought forth significant inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution’s narrative.

The judgment highlighted the lack of eye-witness testimony and the discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Most notably, the court pointed out the investigative lapses, such as the absence of a serological examination of the alleged murder weapon and the non-inclusion of Kumar’s signature on the seizure list.

In their pivotal judgment, the bench stated, “The circumstances relied upon must be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards accused’s guilt and must form a chain so far complete that there is no escape from conclusion that within all human probability it is accused and no one else who had committed the crime.” 

Date of Judgment: 21st November 2023

MOHAN KUMAR VS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.     

Similar News