Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MALASRI NANDI
Kalpana Das S/o Late Monoranjan Das – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MALASRI NANDI, J.
1. Heard Mr. A.H. Alamgir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state.
2. By filing this application u/s 397/401 R/W Section 482 of the Cr.PC, 1973, the accused petitioners have prayed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 15.06.2013, passed in Crl. Appeal No.32/2009 by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi dismissing the appeal and thereby affirming the judgment and order dated 07.07.2009 passed by the learned CJM, Hailakandi in C.R Case No.206/2004, u/s 323/342/34 IPC and sentencing the petitioners to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each in default simple imprisonment for 1 month each for their conviction u/s 323/342/34 IPC on each count.
3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 06.06.2004, at around 7/8 pm, accused/petitioner Kalpana Das called complainant Joygopal Das to her residence and thereafter, the remaining accused petitioners namely Kutu Das, Subol Das, Arun Das, Jadav Das, Dulal Das, Chandu Das, Bindu Das and Ashit Das assaulted the complainant with fists and blows causing injuries on his person. Accordingly, the complainant filed a complaint case in the Court of lea
The revisional court's role is to ensure legality and propriety of lower court findings without re-evaluating evidence, modifying sentences only for propriety.
Conviction cannot be sustained when relying on unexhibited evidence and procedural discrepancies, compromising fair trial rights.
The court confirmed that the conviction under IPC Sections 341, 324, and 506 was valid based on the evidence of the injured parties, emphasizing the role of corroborative evidence in criminal cases.
The court established that unexplained delays in lodging FIRs and contradictions in witness testimonies can undermine the prosecution's case, necessitating careful judicial scrutiny.
The court upheld the conviction for causing injuries but modified the sentence to a fine, considering the elapsed time and nature of injuries.
The limitations of the court's jurisdiction under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C and the principles of reappreciating evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent evidence from prosecution witnesses and medical reports to support the prosecution case, as well as the consideration of....
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
