Back
MITALI THAKURIA
Aka Kalung S/o Shri Kalung Ganku – Appellant
Versus
State Of AP – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. J. Tsering, learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondent; Mr. K. Saxena, learned Amicus Curiae for the victim; and Ms. T. Y. Bhutia, learned counsel for the informant.
1. This is an application filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned and judgment and order dated 22.08.2022, passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Tezu, in POSCO Case No. 05(LDV)/2021, corresponding to Roing P.S Case No. 22/2021, whereby, the appellant, namely, Aka Kalung, has been convicted under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and vide order dated 30.08.2022, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10(ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-and in default of payment to undergo further Simple Imprisonment of 2(two) months.
2. The appellant/convict is presently undergoing sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment since 22.08.2022, in the District Jail, Tezu, in pursuant to impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Tezu, in POSCO Case No. 05(LDV)/2021.
3. The brief facts of th
None of the case laws listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. The list appears to present a single case law with multiple legal principles or observations, but there is no language suggesting it has been invalidated or discredited in subsequent rulings.
[Followed / Valid Law]
The case law discusses principles related to evidence, hostile witnesses, and procedural considerations under Section 313 Cr.P.C. These are foundational legal principles that are generally upheld unless explicitly overruled. Since there is no indication of subsequent treatment, these principles are presumed to remain good law.
The mention that "every error or omission in compliance of the provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C., does not necessarily vitiate trial" reflects a nuanced understanding of procedural law that is likely still valid.
[Uncertain / No Clear Treatment]
The list does not specify whether this case law has been followed, distinguished, criticized, or otherwise treated in later decisions.
Without references to subsequent case law or judicial commentary, the treatment remains ambiguous.
The entire list appears to be a single case law with multiple legal principles but no indication of its subsequent judicial treatment. Therefore, the treatment status of this case law remains uncertain.
If additional context or case citations were provided indicating how this case has been treated in later rulings, a more definitive categorization could be made. As it stands, the treatment is unclear.
**Source :** Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma VS State of Uttarakhand - Supreme Court
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
