Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ROBIN PHUKAN, N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
Bhakta Chakma Son of Shri Devendra Chakma – Appellant
Versus
State of AP – Respondent
JUDGMENT & ORDER :
N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.
Heard Mr. A. Dhar, and Mr. D. Ghosh, learned counsels, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Ms. Topi Jini, and Mr. Gyati Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutors, Arunachal Pradesh, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, and Ms. Sum Valentine Darang, learned legal-aid-counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2/informant.
2. The instant appeal has been instituted by the appellant, herein, assailing the judgment, dated 01.04.2022, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Khonsa, Tirap District, in Khonsa Sessions Case No. 14/2021, convicting the appellant under Section 307/326 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 25(1B)(a)/27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959.
The appellant, herein, has also assailed the order of sentence, dated 07.04.2022, sentencing the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and payment of a fine of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 307/326 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as the further sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3(three) years and payment of a fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 25(1B)(a)/27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959, and in default of payment of fine; to undergo simple imprisonm
The court upheld the conviction for attempt to murder and grievous hurt, modifying the life sentence to 10 years based on the nature of the injuries and lack of intent to kill.
The court upheld conviction for grievous hurt where sufficient evidence was present but reversed convictions under sexual assault and firearms misuse due to lack of proof.
The position of law is that the burden of proof that requisite sanction had been obtained rests upon the prosecution. Such burden includes proof that sanctioning authority had given sanction in refer....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellants were convicted under Section 324 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act for causing hurt using firearms during an altercation, base....
The court affirmed conviction for attempted murder while reducing the sentence due to mitigating circumstances, highlighting scrutiny of evidence in violent crime cases and the need for direct corrob....
The conviction for attempted murder under Section 307 IPC was upheld based on eyewitness accounts, while the charge under the Arms Act was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.
Under such backdrop the conviction of the appellant under section 27 of Arms Act is maintained.
The prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on uncorroborated witness testimony, especially from related parties, is insufficient for conviction.
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
