SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SUBHASH CHAND
Chanderdeo Gope – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha has been appointed as amicus in this case as would appear from the order dated 09th April, 2019. For ready reference, the said order is being reproduced as under:
The learned A.P.P. shall file an affidavit.
Nobody appears on behalf of the appellants, however, reports dated 19.03.2019 and 01.04.2019 have been received from the Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee which transpire that both the appellants have desired for legal aid.
In view of the aforesaid fact, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel is hereby appointed as Amicus in this case.
The Registry is directed to serve a complete set of paper-book to Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, the learned Amicus and the learned A.P.P, if already not supplied.
The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus on submission of bill(s).
Fee for learned Amicus shall be fixed on disposal of the appeal.
Post the matter on 02.05.2019 under the heading “For Orders”.
Let a copy of the order be given to the l
Baldev Raj v. State of Haryana [1991 Supp (1) SCC 14 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 659 : AIR 1991 SC 37].
Bengai Mandal @ Begai Mandal v. State of Bihar
Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan
Harijan Megha Jesha v. State of Gujarat [1979 SCC (Cri) 652 : AIR 1979 SC 1566 : 1979 Cri LJ 1137]
Kishore Chand v. State of H.P. [(1991) 1 SCC 286 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 172 : AIR 1990 SC 2140]
Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab [(1975) 4 SCC 234 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 479 : AIR 1975 SC 1320]
Narayan Singh v. State of M.P. [(1985) 4 SCC 26 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 460 : AIR 1985 SC 1678]
Piara Singh v. State of Punjab [(1977) 4 SCC 452 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 614 : AIR 1977 SC 2274]
Rang Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P.
Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj
Shamu Balu Chaugule v. State of Maharashtra [(1976) 1 SCC 438 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 56]
The convicting based solely on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confessions requires corroborative proof and must adhere to well-established principles regarding such evidence.
Extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence requiring corroboration and should be credible; reliance on insufficient evidence led to the appellant's acquittal.
For a conviction based on extra-judicial confession, corroborative evidence is essential, and any substantial contradictions in testimonies undermine its reliability.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for complete and unimpeachable evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a case of circumstantial 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.