Back
DEBANGSU BASAK, BIBHAS RANJAN DE
Gangadhar Rajowar @ Rajwar – Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Bibhas Ranjan De, J. - After being convicted and sentenced in Sessions Trial no. 01 of 2019 arising out of Sessions Case No. 100 of 2018 in connection with Joypur PS Case No. 22/2018 dated 22.03.2018 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC), by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Purulia vide judgment and order dated 27.02.2020, the accused persons/appellants have filed an instant Criminal Appeal.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, the Ld. Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and in default payment thereof, the appellant were directed to undergo six (6) months' additional imprisonment.
3. The facts as unfolded by the prosecution, in short conspectus, are that a written complaint was handed over to the Inspector in charge Joypur PS by the First Informant, Sri. Haradhan Rajowar (PW-1) on 22.03.2018 stating therein that marriage of his cousin brother was settled with one Upashi Rajowar, the daughter of Budhu Rajwar of village Nutandih but the marriage was cancelled at the instance of bride's family. As a result, th
The court found discrepancies in witness testimonies, lack of medical evidence, and illegal recovery of weapons, leading to the acquittal of the accused under Section 302 IPC.
Evidence must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness accounts and lack of corroborative medical evidence warranted acquittal.
The reliability of an injured eye-witness testimony and its corroboration by medical evidence are crucial in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The court established that a common intention among co-accused can lead to joint liability for murder, even if not all participants inflicted the fatal blow, provided their actions collectively demon....
Once prosecution has brought home evidence of presence of accused at scene of crime, then onus stood shifted on defence to explain as to what had brought them to place of occurrence.
The judgment establishes that mere participation in a crime is not sufficient for conviction under Section 34 IPC; there must be evidence of common intention and active participation in the commissio....
When FIR is delayed, in absence of proper explanation, courts must be on guard and test evidence meticulously to rule out possibility of embellishments in prosecution story.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent and natural witness evidence, immediate apprehension of the accused with the weapon, and medical evidence supporting the....
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
