Back
T. AMARNATH GOUD, ARINDAM LODH
Paresh Das – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of prosecution allegations. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments highlighting contradictions in evidence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. witness testimonies and their inconsistencies. (Para 19 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 4. court's scrutiny of evidence and doubt on prosecution. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 5. final decision to overturn conviction. (Para 32 , 33) |
JUDGMENT
T. Amarnath Goud, J. - Heard Mr. B. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. R. Datta, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Tripura-respondent.
2. This criminal appeal under Section-374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.11.2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia, in Case No. S.T.(T-1) 01 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for committing offence under Section-302 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- [ten thousand] with default stipulations.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that one Dipak Baidya (PW-9) lodged an oral ejahar in the late night of 06.11.2015 which was read over
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 prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and serious contradictions in witness testimonies can lead to the overturning of convictions.
The prosecution must establish evidence beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, particularly where circumstantial evidence is predominant, leading to acquittal for murder but conviction for rape.
Confessional statements of co-accused alone are insufficient for conviction; corroborative evidence is essential to link the accused to the crime.
The prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to significant inconsistencies in witness testimonies.
Oral dying declaration is a weak kind of evidence and is not worthy of consideration when exact words uttered by the deceased is not available.
Circumstantial evidence must form a continuous chain of facts that conclusively connect the accused to the crime, leading to a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
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 court confirmed that minor discrepancies in witness testimonies do not undermine the evidential basis for conviction if core facts are established beyond reasonable doubt.
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
