T. AMARNATH GOUD, ARINDAM LODH
Kalipada Roy – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent
JUDGMENT
T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This instant appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.05.2019 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh, in case No. S.T.(T-1)08 of 2018 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and thereby sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.
2. The facts in brief as surfaced in the plaint and relevant to the fact of the case are that Biralal Sarkar, the victim, and accused-appellant, Kalipada Roy are neighbours. On 23.06.17 in the night time, the accused appellant under the influence of liquor abused the victim and his family members using slang language. On 24.06.17 at around 6.30 a.m., the victim while taking tea went to the house of the accused appellant and asked him why he abused him and his family members using slang language. The accused-appellant on seeing the victim in his courtyard came out from his dwelling hut holding a 'dao' and the accused appellant started assaulting the victim with that 'dao'. On hearing hue and cry of the victim, the informant
The court modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II, establishing the accused's knowledge that his actions were like....
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, and victim testimony can suffice even without independent witnesses if corroborated by other evidence.
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 court established that actions taken in the heat of the moment, amid provocations rooted in prior disputes, do not equate to intent to kill under IPC.
The court affirmed that the appellant's actions constituted murder under Section 302 IPC, rejecting claims of provocation.
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....
The essential ingredients for conviction under Section 307 IPC were not met in light of insufficient evidence regarding the accused's intent, leading to a downgrade of conviction to Section 324 IPC.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and a plea of insanity must be supported by medical evidence.
Although the accused had the intent to kill, yet, the assault was the out-come of a sudden quarrel, made in a heat of passion and without any premeditation
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of exception 4 to section 300 of the IPC to determine the nature of the accused's act and the appropriate charge under the IPC.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.