B. R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA
Jasobanta Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. The present criminal appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated 17th July, 2014, passed by the Orissa High Court, Cuttack (“High Court” for short), in Jail Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 2000. Vide the impugned judgment, the High Court affirmed the judgment dated 26th August, 2000, passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal (“Trial Court” for short) in Sessions Trial No. 2-A of 1989, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short) and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
2. The facts, in brief, leading to the present appeal, are as follows:
2.1 On 9th October, 1988, the Police Station Jarapada, Angul, District Dhenkanal, received oral information at 3 PM from Hemanta Kumar Sahu (PW-4) and Maheswar Pradhan, to the effect that Laxminarayan Sahu has been murdered. On the basis of the oral information, the Office In-Charge, Jarapada Police Station (PW22) (“I.O.” for short), registered a First Information Report (Exhibit-1) vide Crime No. 40(3) of 1988 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. On registration of the FIR, the I.O. visited the spot, held inquest over the dead body of the decea
Harbeer Singh vs. Sheeshpal and others
Mousam Singha Roy v. State of W.B.
Murder – Conviction solely based on recovery would not be tenable.
Murder – Exaggerated devotion to rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law.
A single witness's testimony can only sustain a conviction if wholly reliable; the presence of multiple hostile witnesses necessitates rigorous evidence scrutiny and adherence to the principle of par....
The judgment establishes that in cases of mob violence, individual culpability can still be determined based on credible witness testimony, and that the presence of a mob does not negate the responsi....
Motive is not essential for conviction in murder cases if direct and credible eyewitness testimony is present.
When FIR is delayed, in absence of proper explanation, courts must be on guard and test evidence meticulously to rule out possibility of embellishments in prosecution story.
The defendant's conviction for murder was overturned due to unreliable eyewitness accounts and the prosecution's failure to examine the investigating officer, raising reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt with reliable and corroborated evidence.
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.