Back
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SUBHASH CHAND
Mahabir Oraon son of Jauru Oraon – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) :
1. The instant appeal is against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 10.06.1994 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Lohardaga in Sessions Trial No.212/111 of 1990, whereby and whereunder, the appellants, namely, Mahabir Oraon, Narayan Oraon and Budhram Oraon have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to suffer R.I. for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 08.12.1989 at about 7:00 a.m., the informant, namely, Some Oraon, P.W. 7 along with his brothers, namely, Mangra Oraon and Sewar Oraon (deceased) went to his field for transplantation of potato and to plough their field. At about 12 o’clock in the noon, the informant’s wife, namely, Hira Orain, P.W. 3 came and reported that the accused persons, the appellants, namely, Mahabir Oraon, Narayan Oraon and Budhram Oraon have demolished the wall of the house. The informant along with his brothers ran towards their house after getting such information and when they reached their house, accused Budhram Oraon came armed with sp
The importance of ocular testimony over medical evidence and the application of Section 34 of the IPC in proving common intention.
A conviction cannot stand when there are significant contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, raising doubts about the prosecution's case.
The conviction cannot be sustained due to significant contradictions in eyewitness testimony, undermining the prosecution's burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The credibility of eyewitnesses and the probative value of medical evidence are crucial in evaluating the consistency of ocular and medical evidence in reaching a decision.
The testimonies of the witnesses hold greater evidentiary value than medical evidence, and in case of minor discrepancy, the ocular testimony prevails. The court should adopt the view favorable to th....
The judgment establishes that a concerted attack resulting in death, supported by credible eyewitness testimony, constitutes sufficient grounds for conviction under Sections 302 and 34 IPC, regardles....
Conviction under Section 302 cannot rest on sole eyewitness testimony riddled with contradictions, delay in naming accused, medical inconsistencies, and unnatural conduct; prosecution must prove guil....
Prosecution must substantiate charges with reliable evidence; significant discrepancies in witness statements and medical evidence warrant acquittal.
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
