Back
AKIL KURESHI, ARINDAM LODH
Bakul Ranjan Dhar – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background on conviction for murder (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding child witness credibility (Para 8 , 9 , 39 , 40) |
| 3. witness testimonies and evidence collection (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 4. analysis of evidence pointing to homicide (Para 44 , 45 , 48 , 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 5. final judgment and dismissal of appeal (Para 54 , 55) |
JUDGMENT
Arindam Lodh, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.06.2019, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar, in connection with case No.ST(Type-1) 28 of 2016 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence committed under Section 302 of IPC with default stipulation, and further to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years, and fine of Rs.30,000/- with default stipulation for committing offence under Section 201 of IPC.
2. The prosecution case was set in motion with the receipt of a complaint lodged by one Bakul Ranjan Dhar, the husband of the deceased wherein, it was alleged t
The court affirmed that the testimony of a child witness can be credible and sufficient for conviction, supported by corroborative forensic evidence, establishing homicide over suicide.
The reliability of a child witness's evidence, the need for corroboration, and the significance of medical evidence in establishing guilt in a murder case.
Murder - Testimony of sole child witness - There is no age limit fixed for a person to be a competent witness. A child of tender age can also be a competent witness.
The court established that a conviction for murder can be sustained on the basis of circumstantial evidence, provided that the evidence forms a complete chain that leads to the only reasonable conclu....
Suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal cases.
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must conclusively establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; any gaps can benefit the accused.
Eyewitness testimony holds credibility even when minor contradictions exist; motive for crime established through related witness accounts legitimizes conviction under Section 302 IPC.
The court highlighted the necessity of corroborative evidence in witness testimonies, particularly concerning juvenile witnesses.
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
