Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
Rajkumar Rishi – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of facts surrounding the victim's death. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. confessions led to discovery of bomb-making materials. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. legal significance of section 27 of the evidence act. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 4. chain of circumstantial evidence supports conviction. (Para 39 , 56) |
| 5. judgment upheld; appeals dismissed. (Para 57 , 58 , 67 , 68) |
JUDGMENT :
Rajasekhar Mantha, J.
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated21st December, 2016 and 22nd December, 2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge 3rd Court in Malda in Sessions Trial no. 08 of 2012 arising out of Sessions Case no. 298 of 2011. The appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC along with Section 4(a) of The Explosive Substance Act.
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The prosecution case in brief is that the victim, Aparna Biswas, a teacher at Malda Ramkinkar Balika Vidyashram, was also a tenant in the house of Sitanshu Das (PW 3) at Malanchapally English Bazar, Malda. Her rented room was situated on the ground floor of the house.
3. On the 24th of April, 2011 when the victim was not at home, a courier (PW6) de
Confessions constitute admissible evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act if they lead to recovery of incriminating materials, establishing the offenders' knowledge and intent in a murder linke....
In view of Section 10 of the Evidence Act anything said, done or written by those who enlist their support to the object of conspiracy and those who join later or make their exit before completion of....
(1) Section 34 IPC and 115 IPC would not go hand in hand.(2) Evidence is raw material which Judge or Adjudicator uses to reach a finding of fact – Courts can record order of conviction even in a case....
Conviction under Section 307 IPC requires clear proof of intent to kill; mere injuries or hostile testimony without corroborating evidence are insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, lacking sufficient evidence to prove motive or a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.
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
