Back
T. AMARNATH GOUD
Parikshit Sinha – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent
JUDGMENT
T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This is a revision petition under Section 397 read with under Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 08.04.2022, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2021, by the Ld. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, whereby and where under the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.09.2021 passed in PRC (WP) 59 of 2019, by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate North Tripura, Dharmangar, has been upheld.
2. For the sake of brevity the parties are referred to as in the cause title of PRC (WP) 59 of 2019. The Prosecution case in brief is on 25.04.2019 at about 0010 hours at Sanicherra PHC under Churaibari PS, the accused criminally intimidated informant Smt. Nachima Begam of dire consequences. Secondly, the accused voluntarily caused hurt to the informant and her colleagues being public servants in the discharge of their duties as such public servants, or with intent to prevent or deter them or any other public servant from discharging their duties as such public servants, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by them in the lawful discharge of their duties as such public servants. Thirdly, the accused assaulted or used c
Conviction for violence against medical personnel does not require medical evidence to prove injury severity; FIR delays do not negate prosecution if reasonable.
The court affirmed the conviction under Sections 353 and 504 IPC, establishing that abusive actions towards a public servant can constitute assault, deterring them from performing their official duti....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that assaulting a public servant to deter them from discharging their duty constitutes offences under Sections 332 and 353 IPC, and the court may c....
The prosecution failed to prove the charges of attempted murder and grievous hurt due to lack of evidence regarding intent and the nature of injuries.
Prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and prior enmity does not inherently ensure evidence reliability.
The court established that for a charge under Section 307 IPC to be sustained, there must be clear evidence of intent to kill, which was not present in this case due to the nature of injuries and the....
The evidence must prove incidents beyond reasonable doubt; discrepancies and contradictions in testimonies can lead to acquittal.
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
