Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
Maynul Bere @ Sk. Maynul – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rajasekhar Mantha, J.
1. The present appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 22nd April 2015 and 23rd April 2015 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC-1), Krishnanagar, Nadia, in Sessions Trial No. 2 July (2008) arising out of Sessions Case No. 132(5) of 2007. The appellants, Maynul Bere, Latif Shaikh, Maisuddin Shaikh, Waser Sk @ Wacher Mayra, were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
2. The appellants Mosaref Sk @ Musa, Maisuddin Sk, Faisuddin Bere, Jahangir Sk, Mainul Bere, WasirSk @ Wacher Mayra, Latif Sk, Ismail Mallick, AtabSk, Tayeb Ali Sk and Nur Islam @ Icchu were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine, for offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
THE PROSECUTION CASE
3. The prosecution case is that on the 9th November, 2005 at about 09:00 AM in a plot of agricultural land located at a place called “Banskata” Math (field), Haphijuddin Mallick (PW 4) (resident of Dingel Village, under Kaliaganj PS) saw that accused Tayeb Ali Sk was ploughing into the former’s land after breaking an
The court reaffirmed that discrepancies in minor details do not undermine the credibility of eyewitnesses in violent crimes where the prosecution has established overwhelming evidence of guilt.
Conviction cannot stand when significant doubts arise due to contradictory testimonies and acquittal of co-accused on similar evidence, emphasizing the principle of parity in criminal proceedings.
Point of Law : Any outsider or stranger committing a crime of murder, in which event, identification of assailant becomes very critical and crucial but in light of evidences as brought on record, ide....
The principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC confirms that all members of an unlawful assembly are guilty of offenses committed in prosecution of a common object, regardless of individu....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for reliability and consistency in witness testimonies and evidence presented by the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doub....
The conviction was modified from Section 304(Part-II) to Section 325 of IPC, establishing that while the actions resulted in serious injury, they did not demonstrate the intent necessary for murder.
The sufficiency of evidence and the absence of medical reports presented during the trial were the main legal points established in the given judgment.
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
