Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, SOURENDRA PANDEY
Mahabir Manjhi, S/o Late Budhu Manjhi – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SOURENDRA PANDEY, J.
1. Both the accused, namely, Mahabir Manjhi and Gaya Manjhi have preferred this criminal appeal, but appellant no. 1, Mahabir Manjhi died in Central Jail, Gaya on 07.01.2001, hence vide order of this Court dated 01.03.2002, this appeal was directed to abate, so far appellant no. 1 (Mahabir Manjhi) is concerned.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant no.2 and learned A.P.P. for the State of Bihar.
3. The present appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 25.04.1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 26.04.1996 (in short referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nawada in connection with Sessions Trial No. 365/94, 38/94.
4. By the impugned judgment, the appellant no.2 has been convicted for the offences under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C.
Prosecution Case:
5. That the prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.07.1994 at about 6.00 P.M., the father of the informant (P.W.- 4), namely Kameshwar Manjhi (since deceased), returned from
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on related witnesses without corroboration is insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on witness testimony requires corroboration, especially when witnesses are near relatives.
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt leads to acquittal.
Conviction under IPC 302/34 upheld on reliable sole eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence and witnesses, despite minor discrepancies and non-examination of investigating officer/docto....
Conviction requires consistent evidence; inconsistencies and contradictions raise reasonable doubt regarding guilt.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of independent witnesses can lead to quashing of conviction.
Point of law: Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting ....
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
