Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE
Goutam Saha – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.
1. Petitioners herein are aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 10th September, 2018 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, in Criminal Appeal no. 21 of 2018, by which the Court below has affirmed the judgment and order of Conviction and sentence dated 26th February, 2018 in GR Case No. 658 of 2010 for committing offence punishable under section 326/34 of the IPC.
2. One Subir Nag lodged a complaint at Amharst Street Police Station on 21.03.2010 at about 22.25 hrs., where it was alleged that the accused persons/petitioners with common intention at first abused him with filthy languages and thereafter assaulted him physically with bamboo stick and iron rode due to having previous grudge. During such occurrence victim’s mother-in-law Kunti, wife Rani came to rescue him but they were also assaulted and they sustained injury. Ultimately his mother-in-law somehow rescued him. As a result of such physical assault victim sustained severe injuries and he was taken to Medical College and Hospital by his relatives for his treatment. On the basis of complain police initiated Amharst Street P.S. case no.
The need for conclusive evidence to prove the charge under Section 326 IPC and granting the benefit of doubt in the absence of substantiated evidence.
The delay in sending the FIR did not affect the prosecution's case, and the court found no illegality or perversity in the lower courts' findings.
Conviction upheld for grievous hurt under IPC 326, but quashed for attempted murder under IPC 307 due to lack of evidence of intent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proof for the specific elements of each charge under the Indian Penal Code.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused's actions constituted an offence under Section 326 of IPC, and the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove t....
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
