Back
T. AMARNATH GOUD, ARINDAM LODH
Jabir Hussian Choudhury – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent
JUDGMENT
T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This criminal appeal under Section- 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.11.2019, passed by the learned Session's Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, in connection with Case No. S.T.(Type-1) 25 of 2015, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted under Section-302 read with Section-34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE sentencing them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and also liable to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulations.
2. The prosecution case as revealed at the trial is that, one Mst. Anowara Begam, wife of late Ala Uddin of Baghan, lodged an ejahar with the Officer-in-charge of the Churaibari Police Station to the effect that on 13.09.2014 at about 21.00 hour her son Amirul Islam went out from home riding on his motorbike to go to Kadamtala but, while he reached at Baghan village in front of the house of the accused person namely, Mortuja Ahmed Choudhury, the accused persons namely, Mortuja Ahmed Choudhury, Kabir Uddin, Khaiyrul Hussen, Jabir Hussain, Jashim Uddin, and Jamal Uddin, wrongfully restrained him by blocking the road with a t
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and serious contradictions in witness testimonies can lead to the overturning of convictions.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to do so, due to contradictions and lack of corroboration, cannot sustain a conviction.
The conviction under sections 302 and 34 of IPC was affirmed due to overwhelming eyewitness testimony establishing participation in a group assault leading to homicide.
The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, highlighting the essential legal principle that mere suspicion cannot sustain a conviction.
The prosecution's burden is to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with eyewitness testimony being critical, and discrepancies in procedural reports do not invalidate a solid case.
The court confirmed that minor discrepancies in witness testimonies do not undermine the evidential basis for conviction if core facts are established beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to significant inconsistencies in witness testimonies.
Point of law: Offence of Murder – Chain of circumstances proved – Common intention – Conviction justified.
A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt but a fair doubt based upon reasons and common sense – It must grow out of evidence in the case – When a reasonable doubt arises in a matter, benefit o....
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
