Back
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, NAVNEET KUMAR
Guput Singh @ Gupteshwar Prasad Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.—Since both these appeals arise out of the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as such with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Factual Matrix
2. These appeals have been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment of conviction dated 07.12.2004 and Order of sentence dated 08.12.2004, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Palamau, in Sessions Trial No.61 of 2003 arising out of Sadar (Town) P.S. Case No.317 of 2002 registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and have been directed to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, further, both the convicts have been directed to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, d
(1) Number of witnesses – There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on sole testimony of a single witness – But if there are doubts about testimony courts will insist on corroboration.(2) M....
Conviction can be based on a sole eyewitness if credible, but significant inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence can lead to acquittal.
The conviction based on the testimony of a sole injured eyewitness is valid if the testimony is credible and minor discrepancies do not overshadow the overall evidence supporting the charges of murde....
Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC unsustainable on uncorroborated, contradictory testimony of interested sole eyewitness; benefit of reasonable doubt mandates acquittal where prosecution fails to p....
The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to reliance on uncorroborated eyewitness testimony from interested parties and lack of independent evidence.
The conviction cannot stand if eyewitness testimony is contradictive and lacks corroboration, underscoring the necessity for reliability in criminal prosecutions.
Conviction can be upheld based on the reliable testimony of a sole eyewitness, irrespective of the presence of corroborating evidence or independent witnesses, as long as the evidence is credible.
Mere failure of the prosecution in producing reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory relating to the weapon of offence and the blood-stained earth and clothes would not derogate from the veracit....
Conviction under Section 302 cannot rest on sole eyewitness testimony riddled with contradictions, delay in naming accused, medical inconsistencies, and unnatural conduct; prosecution must prove guil....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
