Back
MALASRI NANDI
SANTOSH KALITA S/O LATE BHOLARAM KALITA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ASSAM – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MALASRI NANDI, J.
1. Heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.09.2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon in Sessions Case No. 207/2000, whereby, the accused/appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3(three) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for 6(six) months.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 08.05.1998, at around 8:30 AM, the accused/appellant along with some other persons trespassed into the land of the informant and as per direction of one Bhola Kalita and Rabiram Kalita, the accused/appellant and co-accused Upen Kalita gave blows to Ratulmoni Bora causing grievous injuries on his person. Due to the alleged assault, Khagen Bora also sustained injuries.
4. On the same day, an FIR has been lodged by PW-4, brother of the deceased before the Officer-In-Charge, Nagaon Police Station and a case was registered vide Nagaon Police Station Case No. 356/1998, and the investigation was initiated. Af
The court upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC, affirming that related witnesses' testimonies are credible and sufficient for establishing direct involvement in the crime.
Conviction upheld under Section 304 Part-II IPC based on credible eyewitness testimony despite minor contradictions; intention to murder not established.
The court modified convictions from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the need for established common intention among accused, reflecting principles of reasonable doubt....
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Rinkesh Goyal For the Respondent : Ajeet Singh Bhadoriya, Rajeev Upadhyay
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 necessity of proving common intention under Section 34 IPC was emphasized, leading to convictions for individuals directly involved while acquitting others without adequate evidence.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing common intention and individual participation in the offence beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting the need for reliable evidence to prove the a....
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
