Back
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
Azizul Islam @ Azizul Hoque S/o Ansar Uddin – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. N. Deka, learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioners and Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the sole respondent/opposite party.
2. The present criminal revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed assailing judgment and order dated 08.07.2011 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar), Cachar, Silchar in G.R. Case No. 3406/2003, whereby the petitioners were convicted under Section 341/323/326/34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment (SI) for 1 (one) month for the offences punishable under Sections 341/34 IPC, to undergo SI for 3 (three) months for the offence punishable under Sections 323/34 IPC and also 6 (six) months RI under Section 326/34 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand only) each and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 2 (two) months.
3. Further challenge is against the appellate judgment and order dated 19.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Cachar, Silchar in Criminal Appeal No. 21/2011, whereby the aforesaid judgment and order dated 08.0
The credibility of injured witnesses is significant and their testimonies cannot be dismissed solely due to their relationship with victims, supported by corroborative evidence.
Point of Law : Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 made it clear the number of witnesses are not criteria, but quality of evidence and not quantity of evidence. Further, it is made clear that me....
The evidentiary value of an injured witness is significant, and their testimony should not be dismissed lightly, especially when corroborated by medical evidence.
The sufficiency of the complainant's testimony in proving the prosecution case, the impact of minor discrepancies in witness testimonies, and the importance of the quality of evidence over quantity.
Conviction under IPC can rely solely on the victim's testimony if credible, but all sentences must adhere to minimum statutory requirements.
Credibility of injured eyewitnesses is paramount; their testimony cannot be disregarded solely due to relationships with the complainant. Minor inconsistencies do not negate the prosecution's case.
In criminal revision against acquittal, courts must show clear evidence of error or injustice for appeal. Acquittals are upheld unless substantial proof against accused emerges.
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
