Back
JOYMALYA BAGCHI, GAURANG KANTH
Haren @ Harendranath Murmu – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
1. Appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 29.09.2018 and 01.10.2018 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 2nd Court Jhargram, Paschim Medinipur in Sessions Case No. 16 (01) of 2013 arising out of Sessions Trial No. 43 (02) of 2015 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Sections 449/34 of IPC and Sections 302/34 IPC and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two years more for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer further imprisonment for five months each for the offence punishable under Section 449 IPC; both the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. On 26.05.2012 at 2.10 A.M, Belarani Saha, (P.W 1) and her husband Sudhir Kumar Saha (P.W 2) heard shouts coming from outside the main door situated on the southern side of their house. They heard someone calling ‘Master Mosai come out’. As the voice was that of a known person, Sudhir and Belarani enquired who was
The court upheld the conviction of the appellants for murder based on corroborative eyewitness testimony and confessions, emphasizing the need to assess evidence in the context of mob violence.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on consistent eyewitness testimony and corroborative medical evidence, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
A conviction under Section 394 IPC requires evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which is compromised by significant procedural lapses and inconsistencies in witness statements.
The prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, relying primarily on credible eyewitness testimony and corroborative forensic evidence, particularly in murder convictions.
Murder conviction affirmed for primary assailant; lesser involvement of accomplices led to reduced sentence, emphasizing need for established common intention in culpability assessment.
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
