T. AMARNATH GOUD, ARINDAM LODH
Chandan Adhikari – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent
JUDGMENT
T. Amarnath Goud, J. - Heard Mr. A. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Ratan Datta, learned PP assisted by Mr. S. Debnath, learned Additional PP appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.04.2021 passed in connection with case No. S.T.(T-1) 12 of 2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge had convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 447 /326/307 IPC, and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 10 (ten) years with default stipulation.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 11.09.2014 at 16.30 hours the appellant entered into the house of the complainant and started shouting and abusing him, and at that time Goutam Adhikari, another nephew of the complainant arrived there on hearing the shouting of the accused and asked the reason of his shouting and then the accused got furious and attacked upon Gautam Adhikari taking out a dagger (sharp knife) due to which said Gautam Adhikari sustained grievous bleeding injury on his abdomen and the ac
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 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 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 must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and serious contradictions in witness testimonies can lead to the overturning of convictions.
The prosecution failed to prove charges of dowry harassment and murder beyond a reasonable doubt, with reliance on indirect witness testimony and inconsistent statements.
Conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt; contradictory witness statements and a clear dying declaration of self-harm undermine the prosecution's case.
Conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence leads to acquittal.
The quality of evidence is crucial in establishing guilt, and irrefutable proof is necessary to convict the accused.
Point of Law : Criminal Trial - Private defence - The law of private defence does not require that the person assaulted or facing an apprehension of an assault must run away for safety. It entitles h....
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.