Back
NAVNEET KUMAR
Arvind Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of Conviction dated 31.05.2004 and order of sentence dated 01.06.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions judge, FTC-II, Palamau at Daltonganj, in connection with S.T. No.261 of 2003, arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No.102 of 2002, corresponding to G.R. No.1321 of 2002, whereby and where under both the appellants Arvind Ram and Pradeep Ram were convicted for the offence punishable under sections 307/34 of I.P.C. and they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by each of the appellants in order to give it to the victim Manoj Sao as compensation and in default of payment of fine, both the appellants were directed to serve the sentence of six months simple imprisonment.
2. The prosecution case arose in the wake of fardbayan of the informant Shiv Prasad Sao (PW - 4), recorded by A.S.I., R.K. Sharma of Town P.S. at Sadar Hospital at 16.00 hours on 17.10.2002 is that-
On 17.10.2002 at about 1.30 PM, in the noon, Shiv Prasad Sao (the informant) and his son Manoj Sao were working in the field. The informant’s son went towards road, for giving accounts of the contributions collected (chand
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to substantiate charges with credible evidence, and the potential for false implication due to enmity and ot....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to substantiate charges and provide corroborating evidence to support the case against the accused.
The prosecution must substantiate charges with consistent, reliable evidence; failure to do so results in acquittal.
Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions in testimonies undermine the case.
The court established that conviction under Section 307 IPC requires clear evidence of intent to kill, which was not proven, leading to the conviction being overturned.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of corroborative evidence and the need for caution in evaluating the testimony of an inimical witness. It also highlights the impact of non-examination of the I....
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
