IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
PRASENJIT BISWAS
In the matter of: Sk. Lal Mahammad – Appellant
Versus
. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRASENJIT BISWAS, J.
1. The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 27.07.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court Burdwan in connection with Sessions Trial No. 6 of 1999 arising out of Sessions Case No. 203 of 1995 is assailed in this appeal.
2. By passing the impugned judgment, this appellant was found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment and order of conviction, the present appeal is preferred at the behest of the appellant.
4. In short campus the story of the prosecution is as follows-
“The instant case was started on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Sitala Bag before the Bhatar Police Station, stating interalia, that on 15.10.94 at 7 P.M. (evening) she went to fetch water from Bolgore Pond and at that time she saw the victim Sukumar Roy was being assaulted by this appellant along with other accused person. It is said in the written complaint that the accused persons assaulted the victim on his head and the victim was found groaning in agony and pain and
Eyewitness testimonies can substantiate convictions even amidst substantial trial delays, with the court having the discretion to modify sentences based on the age and circumstances of the accused.
The absence of visible external injuries does not preclude conviction for assault under Section 323 RPC.
The duty of the prosecution to explain discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence and the impact of inimical relationships between witnesses and the accused on the case's outcome.
In criminal cases, lack of medical evidence and reasonable doubt necessitate acquittal on serious charges, while lesser charges may still stand.
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; significant contradictions in witness testimony can invalidate a case leading to acquittal.
The court reaffirmed that for a conviction under Section 325 IPC, the prosecution must strictly prove the nature of injuries as defined in Section 320 IPC.
The reliability of injured witnesses' testimony and medical reports can establish guilt despite inconsistencies and lapses in the investigation.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, puts no limitations, restrictions, or conditions for exercising power by the appellate Court.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.