Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, ANJAN MONI KALITA
Bandhana kandulana and anr. S/o late lajak kandulana – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and charges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments for appeal by the appellants. (Para 8 , 11) |
| 3. contradictions and testimonies. (Para 9 , 10 , 15) |
| 4. respondent's case and eyewitness accounts. (Para 12 , 22) |
| 5. court's analysis on the evidence presented. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. judgment based on common intention. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 7. conclusion and order of the court. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
JUDGMENT :
M. Zothankhuma, J.
1. Heard Mrs. P.B. Bordoloi, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned Addl. P.P., Assam.
2. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.05.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Sessions Case No.78/2012, arising out of Tezpur P.S. Case No.294/2011, by which the appellants have been convicted under Sections 447 /34, 323/34 and 302/34 of the IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that an FIR dated 27.03.2011 had been submitted by the prosecution witness No.1 (PW-1), stating that the appellants along with their son Johan Kandulana forcibly entered into their home and assaulted her husband, father-
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
