Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS
Sanat @ Sonat Jana – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.
1. Assailing the judgement and order of conviction passed by the Learned Additional Session Judge, 18th Court, Alipore, 24 Parganas South on May 22,2015 and June 2, 2015 in Sessions Trial no. 05(02)09, whereby the appellant is convicted for the offence committed under Section 323/353 and Section 307 IPC and sentenced to suffer Simple imprisonment for a term of 3 years with fine of Rs. 500 for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, for 2 years with fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and Simple imprisonment for 3 years and 3 months with fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code has been .
Brief Resume of the Case
2. A complaint was lodged by constable 722 Binod Kumar working at D.E.B 24 Parganas South, on February 5, 2006 around 5 P.M. in connection with the investigation of a case when he with D.E.O. went to a shop of Mahadeb Mondal at Bakrahat Kirtankhola market. At the time the adjacent VCD shops owner Sanat Jana informed the complainant about the other VCD shops running illegally dealing with Dirty VCD business and requ
The essential ingredients for conviction under Section 307 IPC were not met in light of insufficient evidence regarding the accused's intent, leading to a downgrade of conviction to Section 324 IPC.
The appellate court upheld the conviction under Section 326 IPC for grievous injury, affirming the credibility of the victim's testimony and its alignment with medical evidence.
Conviction upheld for grievous hurt under IPC 326, but quashed for attempted murder under IPC 307 due to lack of evidence of intent.
Conviction for voluntarily causing simple hurt upheld; partial witness contradictions and defective investigation do not warrant acquittal; separate incidents permit differential conviction of accuse....
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused are entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt; the court found the injured witnesses' evidence credible.
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; if reasonable doubt exists, the accused is entitled to acquittal.
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
