Back
SHAMPA DUTT PAUL
Mujibar Sheikh @ Sk. – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. - This appeal is directed against judgement and order dated February 21, 2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Nadia, Krishnagar in Sessions Trial No. 5(II) of 2004 convicting the appellants and sentencing them to suffer R.I. for 2 years each for the offence punishable under Section 148 and 34 IPC and to suffer R.I. for 1 year each for offence punishable under Section 323/34 IPC and further sentenced the appellants to suffer R.I. for 5 years each and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each i.d. to suffer further one year each for offence punishable u/s. 325/34 IPC. All the sentences to run concurrently.
2. Period of detention, if any to be set off as per Section 428 Cr.P.C. Prosecution case in short is that a written complaint was made by one Gulnahar Begum, wife of Najrul Islam Mondal to the officer-in- charge, Kaliganj P.S. stating that on 09.05.1999, at about 7 A.M. while her brother Majaffar Hossain was returning home through pucca rasta, at that time near the house of Majaffar accused Hafijul Sheikh abused him in filthy languages and started assaulting with an iron rod. Out of fear Majaffar raised alarm and hearing the same the mem
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proof for the specific elements of each charge under the Indian Penal Code.
The court considered discrepancies in the complainant's statement but ultimately relied on the evidence of the witnesses and the nature of the injuries to uphold the conviction.
The court emphasized that to establish grievous hurt under the IPC, intent or knowledge of causing such harm must be proven; otherwise, a conviction can be modified to lesser charges.
The need for conclusive evidence to prove the charge under Section 326 IPC and granting the benefit of doubt in the absence of substantiated evidence.
The presence and common intention among co-accused must be substantiated beyond reasonable doubt to uphold convictions under IPC.
Court emphasized that personal vendetta not motivated by caste does not support charges under SC & ST Act; conviction modified from grievous to simple injury under IPC based on nature of the injuries....
The court reaffirmed that for a conviction under Section 325 IPC, the prosecution must strictly prove the nature of injuries as defined in Section 320 IPC.
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
