MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, SHAILENDRA SINGH
Nand Kishore Rai – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Mohit Kumar Shah, J.—The present appeal under Section 374(2) read with Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.06.2016 and 08.06.2016, respectively, passed in Sessions Trial No. 66 of 2008 (arising out of Tajpur (Halai O.P.) P.S. Case No. 37 of 2005), by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-2nd, Samastipur (hereinafter referred to as “learned Trial Judge”). By the said judgment, the learned Trial Judge has convicted the appellants for commission of the offences under Sections 302 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and has sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the IPC with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default they have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months separately. All the appellants have been further sentenced under Section 379 of the IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
2. Short facts of the case are that on 09.02.2005, at about 14:
Paramjit Singh vs. State of Punjab
Uttam vs. State of Maharashtra
Khushal Rao vs. State of Bombay
Govind Narain vs. State of Rajasthan
Sudhakar vs. State of Maharashtra
Ishwar Singh vs. State of U.P.
Mohan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan
Ramji Singh vs. State of Bihar
Rampal Singh vs. State of U.P.
Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra
Chenda vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Surain Singh vs. State of Punjab
Jai Karan vs. State of Delhi (NCT)
Balbir Singh vs. State of Punjab
Panneerselvam vs. State of T.N.
Atbir vs. Govt. (NCT of Delhi)
The court relied on oral and documentary evidence to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 302 IPC.
Murder – Non-examination of Doctor who conducted autopsy on dead body of deceased and who prepared post-mortem report is not fatal to case of prosecution.
A dying declaration must be voluntary and reliable; inconsistencies and external pressure can render it inadmissible, leading to acquittal if no corroborative evidence exists.
The voluntary and truthful nature of dying declaration and the competency of a child witness to depose are crucial in establishing guilt and determining the appropriate criminal offense.
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.