Skip to content

Taijuddin v. State of Assam

Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 147, 148, 302, 201, 149 – the inconsistency in the testimonies – inasmuch as the family members never even pointed a finger at the appellant as also some of the other witnesses, while the witnesses who did point a finger only assigned the role of pointing out the place where the victim was hiding, coupled with his natural presence at site, we cannot, thus, say that by any stretch of imagination the case against the appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt or for that matter really no case seems to have been proved against the appellant given the role assigned to him in the testimony of the witnesses. In our view the appellant is entitled to a clean acquittal in the given facts.

Case Law Reference

  1. Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 16 SCC 752
  2. Subal Ghorai v. State of West Bengal, (2013) 4 SCC 607
  3. C. Magesh v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 5 SCC 645