Gauhati High Court acquits murder accused four yrs after lower court’s conviction

The Gauhati High Court has set aside a lower court's order convicting a person under the charge of murder and sentencing him with rigorous imprisonment for life. The court noted that the trial court had accepted the extrajudicial confession made by the appellant, Radhanath Tanti, and based on that had arrived at the impugned finding. Relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in the "Sahoo vs State of Up" in 1966 and the "Arul Raja vs State of Tamil Nadu" of 2010, the high court bench said an extrajudicial confession will have to be proved like any other fact. "The value of evidence as to confession like any other evidence depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made for the acceptance of the extra judicial confession," it said. After hearing both the parties and pursuing all the materials, the court said "the prosecution has failed to prove the charge brought against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt there is a thick cloud of doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case against the appellant naturally the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellant."

Gauhati High Court acquits murder accused four yrs after lower court’s conviction
The Gauhati High Court has set aside a lower court's order convicting a person under the charge of murder and sentencing him with rigorous imprisonment for life. The court noted that the trial court had accepted the extrajudicial confession made by the appellant, Radhanath Tanti, and based on that had arrived at the impugned finding. Relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in the "Sahoo vs State of Up" in 1966 and the "Arul Raja vs State of Tamil Nadu" of 2010, the high court bench said an extrajudicial confession will have to be proved like any other fact. "The value of evidence as to confession like any other evidence depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made for the acceptance of the extra judicial confession," it said. After hearing both the parties and pursuing all the materials, the court said "the prosecution has failed to prove the charge brought against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt there is a thick cloud of doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case against the appellant naturally the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellant."