Back
BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN
Sudeep Rai, S/o. Kalu Singh Rai – Appellant
Versus
State of Sikkim – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.
1. The appellant convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, West Sikkim at Gyalshing (the learned Sessions Judge) under section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) seeks to challenge both the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, dated 23.09.2019, in Sessions Trial Case No. 07 of 2018 (State of Sikkim vs. Sudeep Rai). The learned Sessions Judge has sentenced the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.
2. Heard Ms Tshering Palmoo Bhutia, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Chettri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are no eye witnesses in the present case and therefore, it is a case based on circumstantial evidence. She submits that the circumstantial evidence has not been proved in the manner required and there are broken links in the chain of circumstances. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge while appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses have taken note of the examination-in-chief but ignored the cross-examination. It is further submitted that even the
Criminal Law - Criminal Trial - Whether conviction justified - Ante mortem injuries noted by Dr. in his post mortem report leads to only hypothesis that appellant knew that such act of his which caus....
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The court upheld the conviction based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a clear motive and reliable witness testimonies linking the appellant to the murder.
The main legal point established is that the evidence of a sole eye-witness can be relied upon if it is convincing and corroborated by other evidence, even if the oral dying declarations are found to....
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : A. S. Rathore For the Respondent : Mukesh Kumawat
The court established that the conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder is justified when intent to kill is not proven, relying on witness credibility and evidential discrepancies.
The court modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to manslaughter under Section 304 Part II IPC, emphasizing lack of premeditation and specific intent due to sudden provocation.
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
