Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Suspicion, However Strong, Cannot Replace Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Gauhati High Court Acquits Abdul Sukkur in Wife’s Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Gauhati High Court has acquitted Abdul Sukkur, who was previously convicted by the Sessions Court for the murder of his wife, Jamila Begum, due to insufficient evidence and procedural lapses. The bench comprising Justices Manish Choudhury and Robin Phukan emphasized the critical need for direct evidence and a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, ultimately granting Sukkur the benefit of doubt.

Hostile Witnesses and Their Testimonies: The court scrutinized the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses, particularly P.W.2 (Rahima Begum, the daughter of the accused and the deceased), P.W.3, and P.W.5, who were declared hostile. These witnesses did not support the prosecution’s case during the trial. The High Court noted, “The prosecution failed to confront these witnesses with their previous statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC to prove contradictions,” thereby weakening the case against Sukkur.

Evaluation of Circumstantial Evidence: Addressing the reliance on circumstantial evidence, the court reiterated established legal principles: “The prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of events leading to the accused’s guilt. The evidence must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and exclude any possibility of innocence.” In Sukkur’s case, the chain of circumstantial evidence was found incomplete, and there were significant gaps that did not conclusively point to his guilt.

Lack of Direct Evidence: The court observed that none of the prosecution witnesses directly witnessed the murder or any assault by Sukkur. The evidence primarily comprised post-occurrence witnesses who arrived after the incident. The court remarked, “Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt,” highlighting the necessity for concrete and unequivocal evidence to sustain a conviction.

The High Court emphasized that for a conviction in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must eliminate any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. In this case, the prosecution’s failure to establish a complete chain of events and the lack of direct evidence led to Sukkur being granted the benefit of doubt. The court concluded that the explanation provided by Sukkur during his examination under Section 313 CrPC was plausible and not contradicted by any substantial evidence.

Justice Choudhury, in delivering the judgment, noted, “The previous inconsistent statements of hostile witnesses cannot be used to contradict the witnesses without proper confrontation. The failure to follow this procedure undermines the credibility of the prosecution’s case.”

The acquittal of Abdul Sukkur underscores the High Court’s adherence to the principle that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases relying on circumstantial evidence. This judgment is expected to have significant implications for future cases, emphasizing the importance of thorough and procedurally sound investigations. By setting aside the conviction, the court has reinforced the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that justice is served based on credible and sufficient evidence.

Date of Decision: 22nd May 2024

Abdul Sukkur vs. State of Assam

Similar News