Gauhati High Court: Accused Sentenced with Rigorous Imprisonment For Murder

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

Tapan Ghosh and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- along with default clause. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that on 04.09.2012, at about 10:30 p.m., when the deceased was coming home after closing his shop, the appellant, armed with a sharp weapon (dao and dagger), had chased the deceased person into the house of Trilochan Singh and hacked him to death.

The Officer-in-Charge of the Lanka Police Station had made G.D. Entry No 94 on 04.09.2012 on the basis of information received from one Bappi Ghosh regarding the murder of Tapan Ghosh. Sub-Inspector (SI) of Police Sri Tankeswar Das, who was the Investigating Officer in this case, had conducted inquest on the dead body and prepared Inquest Report dated 05.09.2012. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer had submitted charge sheet against all the five accused persons for committing the murder of the deceased Tapan Ghosh acting in furtherance of their common intention. The accused persons had pleaded not guilty. Hence, the matter was sent up for trial.

Arguments before the Court

Mr. B. Prasad, learned Amicus Curiae, appeared for the appellant wherein Mr. R. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appeared for Respondent No. 1. No one appeared for Respondent No.2 despite service of notice. By the impugned judgement and order dated 21.10.2017 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Hojai, Sankardev Nagar, in connection with Sessions case No. 80(N) /2014, the sole appellant Amit Ghosh has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for committing the murder.

Issues before the High Court

The learned trial court has convicted the appellant for committing an offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC while acquitting the remaining accused persons for want of evidence to show their involvement in commissioning the crime.  The defense side did not adduce any evidence but the accused has denied his involvement in the incident.

Judgment

The bulk of evidence brought on record by the prosecution side clearly goes to show that the appellant Amit Ghosh had chased the victim Tapan Ghosh to the house of Trilochan and hacked him to death with a “dao” by inflicting multiple cut injuries. By relying upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution side, the learned Trial Court has held that the charge of murder brought against the appellant Amit Ghosh was established beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court had convicted the appellant for committing the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for another six months. However, the other accused persons were acquitted on the ground of want of evidence against them.

As noticed above, there is overwhelming evidence including the testimony of two independent eye-witnesses, available on record so as to establish the charge against the appellant and therefore motive for the crime, in our view, would not have any material bearing in this case. Having regard to the bulk of evidence brought on record more particularly, the testimony of the two eyewitnesses PWs 9 and 10, we are of the view that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for committing an offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life besides imposing fine of Rs 10,000/-. We are, therefore, of the view that no interference is called for with the impugned judgement and order dated 21.10.17. As such, the conviction of the appellant and the sentences imposed upon him by the learned Trial Court stands affirmed.

This appeal is found to be devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -