Back
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Lachit Rabha S/o Shri Dinesh Rabha – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.
1. Heard Mr. D.A. Kaiyum, learned counsel for the appellants: (1) Sri Lachit Rabha and (2) Sri Bhabesh Rabha and heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
2. Sri Lalit Rabha and Sri Bhabesh Rabha (hereinafter also referred to as the appellants or A-1 and A-2, respectively), have filed this appeal challenging the Judgment and Order dated 05.11.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara, in Sessions Case No. 17/2011, convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 25 (1-B) of the Arms Act, 1959 (the Act of 1959, for short), to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- with default stipulation and convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, (the ES Act, for short) to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each with default stipulation.
3. The case against the appellants is that they were active hardcore extremists of a banned militant organization and they have been indulging in subversive activities.
4. The genesis of the case was that on 01.09.2008, at about 10:30 am, the inform
Possession of ammunition and explosives by the appellants was established, leading to their conviction under the Arms Act and the Explosive Substances Act.
Conviction under the Arms Act was overturned due to critical evidentiary failures including improper handling of seized items and lack of ballistic expert testimony.
Criminal prosecution requires solid evidence, and non-examination of key witnesses by the prosecution introduces a reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittal.
Point of Law : Murder - Conviction set aside - Trial court has committed gross-error in believing the sole testimony of PW5 and conviction should not have been based on such type of testimony, which ....
Prosecution must prove case beyond reasonable doubt; absence of key witnesses and inadequate evidence led to the acquittal of the accused.
The importance of credible witness testimony and the need for substantial doubts to undermine the presumption of innocence.
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
