The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and serious contradictions in witness testimonies can lead to the overturning of convictions.

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 tree of betel nut and they assaulted him with a piece of wood for which he received grievous bleeding injuries. The accused persons also assaulted Anowar Hussain who was also accompanied by Amirul Islam and both of them were shifted to Dharmanagar Hospital. Thereafter, both of them were taken to Silchar Medical College and Hospital, and thereafter, considering the critical condition of the son of the complainant, he was referred to Guwahati but, on the way at Jorabat, Meghalaya her son succumbed to his injuries.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the officer-in-charge, Churaibari P.S. registered Churaibari P.S. Case No. 2014 CRB 033 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections-341/323/302/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 against the accused-persons and endorsed the case to the Investigating Officer for investigation. Thereafter, after completion of the investigation, the I.O. being prima facie satisfied submitted charge sheet in the instant case against the accused persons for commission of offence punishable under Sections-341/323/302/34 of IPC.

4. On receipt of the aforesaid charge sheet and on perusal of the same, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharmanagar took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections-341/323/302/34of IPC against the accused persons and copies of the incriminating documents were supplied to the accused persons in compliance to the provision of Section-207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and since the offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the case was committed to this Court for adjudication.

5. Thereafter, on receipt of the case record on commitment since accused Jamal Uddin was reported to have died, his name was struck off and subsequently, upon hearing both sides on the point of framing of charge, and on being prima facie satisfied charges under Sections-341/323/302 read with Section-34 of IPC in three heads were framed against the rest six accused-persons and the contents of the charge was read over and explained to the accused-persons in