Back
JOYMALYA BAGCHI, AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
State of West Bengal – Appellant
Versus
Naban @ Brojo Mohan Hazra – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Joymalya Bagchi, J.
1. Appellant was convicted for murdering of his wife and sentenced to death and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer imprisonment for three months.
2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, he has preferred the instant appeal. Reference has also been made to confirm the death sentence.
3. Prosecution case as levelled against the appellant is to the effect that he had married Namita Hazra thirty years ago. They had two sons viz., Palash and Kalosona aged about 26 and 24 years respectively. On 30.06.2007 at about 9.00 A.M. appellant had gone to the market. He returned around 10.30 A.M. with a boy viz., Bikash Das (PW3) of Bhagason village. Appellant handed over a table fan to him. After Bikash left, a quarrel ensued between appellant and Namita over the issue of giving the table fan to Bikash. Incidentally, a day before Bimal Ghosh, brother of Namita had come to her matrimonial home. He pacified the couple. Namita went upstairs while the appellant started watching television with his brother-in-law, Bimal. Around 11.10 A.M. appellant went upstairs. A few minutes later, Bimal heard the sound of a table fan falling. He rushed upstai
In a murder case, the court must consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances before imposing a sentence. The death sentence should be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases.
Medical evidence on record does not wholly rule out the ocular version of eye-witnesses so as to render the prosecution case improbable.
The court ruled that to impose a death sentence, the prosecution must conclusively demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting such a penalty, which was not established in this case.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on corroborated evidence and the admissibility of statements leading to the discovery of facts to establish guilt under Section 302....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellants had a common intention to murder the victim, and their actions did not fall within the exception for culpable homicide not amou....
The court established that circumstantial evidence and motive for honour killing justified the conviction for murder, while mitigating factors led to the commutation of the death penalty to life impr....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of eyewitness testimony, the principle of 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus', and the duty of the court to separate truth from em....
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
