Back
CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Ram Janki Devi, w/o Laldeo Rai – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/convict under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.11.2003 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.2, Patna in Sessions Trial Case No.26(A) of 1990/360 of 2001, whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted the appellant/convict for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.
2. The case of prosecution is based upon fardbeyan of the informant/deceased, Jadunandan Rai, recorded by A.S.I. Subedar Singh on 30.08.1986 at 1.30 pm. in which the informant stated that on 30.08.1986 at 7.00 am, co-accused, namely (i) Suresh Rai (ii) Harami Rai, both sons of Laldeo Rai, (iii) Indradeo Rai brother of Laldeo Rai (iv) Laladeo Rai and (v) the appellant, namely, Ram Janki Devi, wife of Laldeo Rai, who were neighbours of the informant came at the door of the informant, where the accused Suresh Rai, Harami Rai were armed with bhalaand the remaini
The FIR of a deceased can serve as a dying declaration but must be trustworthy; failure to examine the recording officer undermines its reliability.
The court ruled that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof due to significant evidential inconsistencies and procedural errors, leading to the acquittal of the accused-appellants.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of independent witnesses can lead to quashing of conviction.
Dying declaration as fardbeyan without doctor's fitness certificate but recorded in doctor's presence amid 90% burns held reliable and voluntary where no tutoring evident, sufficient for murder convi....
Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere circumstantial evidence without clear link to the appellant is insufficient for conviction.
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
