Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Rajarshi Bharadwaj, Apurba Sinha Ray
Kaikobad Sk. – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.
1. At the outset, it is informed that the appellant nos.1 and 3 have expired. Death certificates of the appellants have been placed on record. The Appeal stands abated so far as the appellant nos. 1 and 3 are concerned.
2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.03.2013 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1stFast Track Court, Rampurhat Birbhum, in Sessions case no.39 of 2009 convicting the appellants for commission of offences punishable under sections 147/148/323/324/326/302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentencing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default of which they are to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of two and a half years, for the offence punishable under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. In addition, they were also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default whereof to further suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one and a half years, for the offence under Section 326/149 IPC. By the same order, the appellants were further se
The court upheld the conviction of the appellants for murder, finding them part of an unlawful assembly with a common object, supported by consistent eyewitness and medical testimony.
Eyewitness testimony, especially from injured witnesses, is crucial in establishing guilt, and minor inconsistencies do not negate the overall reliability of their accounts.
A conviction cannot stand when there are significant contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, raising doubts about the prosecution's case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent testimony of interested witnesses, corroboration of eyewitness accounts by medical evidence, and evaluation of the accus....
The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants caused the victim's death, leading to their acquittal.
The court determined that while the appellants participated in an unlawful assembly leading to death, their intent was not murder, qualifying the offense under culpable homicide not amounting to murd....
The appellants' conviction for murder was altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to lack of intent, despite their involvement in the unlawful assembly and rioting.
Conviction based on unreliable eyewitness testimonies that lack independent corroboration cannot establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court established that in cases of unlawful assembly, all members can be held vicariously liable for the actions taken in furtherance of a common object, and that the prosecution's failure to exp....
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
