Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Manish Choudhury, Yarenjungla longkumer
Santok Hans, Tinsukia, Assam – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam, represented by the Public Prosecutor – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Manish Choudhury, J.
This criminal appeal from Jail under Section 383 , Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘CrPC’ or ‘the Code’, for short] is directed against a Judgment and Order dated 25.11.2019 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge [FTC-1], Margherita, Tinsukia in Sessions Case no. 10[M] of 2016, which arose out of G.R. Case no. 891/2015 and Margherita Police Station Case no. 300/2015. The accused-appellant faced the trial for causing injuries to two persons, namely, [i] Swanand Oreya; and [ii] Jeewan Machi Barla, along with a charge of attempting to commit murder on one of them.
2. By the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.2019, the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge [FTC-1], Margherita, Tinsukia has found the accused- appellant guilty for committing the offences under Section 324 , Section 326 and Section 307 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE [IPC]. The accused-appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years under Section 324 , IPC for causing hurt to Swanand Oreya by a dao. The accused-appellant has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of f
The admission of guilt by the accused, combined with corroborating testimonies from injured witnesses, sustains the conviction under relevant IPC sections despite the absence of one material witness.
The testimony of injured witnesses holds significant evidentiary value, and their accounts should not be dismissed without compelling reasons, especially when corroborated by medical evidence.
The evidence of an injured witness is accorded special status in law, and their testimony is generally reliable unless substantial contradictions are present. The court emphasized the importance of e....
The intent to commit murder must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and in this case, it was established that the act fell under grievous hurt.
The testimony of a sole eyewitness can sustain a murder conviction if credible, consistent with medical evidence, and unshaken by cross-examination.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder, emphasizing the consistency of eyewitness accounts as reliable evidence supporting the charges under Sections 302 and 9(b) of the Indian Penal Code.
(1) Murder and wrongful confinement – In every criminal trial, minor variations in detail are bound to occur – Discrepancies which do not go to root of prosecution case cannot obliterate otherwise tr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of consistent witness statements and the requirement for the prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the accused.
The court clarified that for a conviction under section 307 IPC, there must be clear evidence of intent to kill, which was not established in this case.
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
