Sufian Sk. v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court at Calcutta considered a criminal revision petition seeking quashing of a conviction for offences under the Arms Act and IPC. The Court found the prosecution evidence credible despite minor discrepancies and upheld the conviction.
What did the court decide?
Petition rejected; copy of judgment to be sent down to Trial Court.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SIDDHARTHA ROY CHOWDHURY
CRR 738 of 2004
SUFIAN SK. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL For the Petitioner : Mr. Amartya Ghosh, Adv., Mr. Sanat Kumar Das, Adv., Mr. Sujan Chatterjee, Adv. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Antarikh Basu, Adv. Hearing concluded on : 9th September, 2022 Judgement on : 14th September, 2022
:- Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J
- This proceeding stems out of an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the judgement passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampore, Murshidabad in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2000, affirming the judgement and order of conviction passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Berhampore, Murshidabad convicting the petitioner and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years for commission of offence punishable under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act and to pay fine with default clause, rigorous imprisonment for three years for
2
committing offence within the meaning of Section 27 (1) of the Arms Act and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- with default clause and rigorous imprisonment for three years for committing offence within the meaning of Section 326 of the I.P.C. and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- with a default clause. All the sentences run concurrently.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the discrepancies in the prosecution testimony are sufficient to warrant interfering with the order of conviction.
Whether the non-availability of the victim's Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement vitiates the evidence.
Whether the failure to record the framing of charge with specific details caused prejudice to the accused.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Sufian Sk.
- respondent
State of West Bengal
Coram
Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Calcutta HC
- Decided on
- · September
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRR/738/2004
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court