REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

MUTUM SEITYABAN SINGH Appellant

V/S

STATE OF MANIPUR Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-accused of this appeal is challenging the judgment passed in Sessions Trial case No. 89/91/5/91/15/93/2/94/5/02 convicting the appellant-accused under Section 302, I. P. C. and the order dated 29-8-2002 sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment not less than 14 years as required by Section 433a of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in the computation of 14 years period, the period during which convict had already been in the Jail during investigation and trial should be taken and calculated by the appropriate government for the purposes under Section 428 of the Cr. P. C.

(2.) HEARD Mr. Kh. Chonjohn, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused as well as Md. Jalaluddin, learned P. P. appearing for the State-respondent.

(3.) THE golden thread which runs throughout the cobweb of criminal jurisprudence as administered in India is that nine guilty may escape but one innocent should not suffer. But at the same time no guilty should escape unpunished once the guilt has been proved to hilt. An unmerited acquittal does no good to the society. If the prosecution has succeeded in making out a convincing case of recording a finding as to the accused being guilty, the Court should not lean in favour of acquittal by giving weight to irrelevant or insignificant circumstances or by resorting to technicalities or by assuming doubts and give benefit thereof where none exists. A doubt, as understood in criminal jurisprudence, has to be a reasonable doubt and not an excuse for a finding in favour of acquittal. An unmerited acquittal encourages wolves in the society being on the prowl for easy prey. (Reference : state of Rajasthan v. N. K. the accused (2000) 5 SCC 30 : (2000 Cri LJ 2205 ).

Click here to view full judgment.

MUTUM SEITYABAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address