High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court

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