Back
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, DEEPAK ROSHAN
Bihari Oraon – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R.Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Mrs. Vani Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P.
2. So far as the appellant no.2 is concerned, an affidavit has been filed by the State from which it appears that appellant no.2 has died in the year 2010 itself and therefore this appeal has abated so far as the appellant no.2 is concerned.
3. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 02.09.1995 passed by Shri Shyam Kumar Mishra, Learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Lohardaga in Sessions Trial No.71 of 1990 / 6 of 1990 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
4. The prosecution case arises out of the First Information Report instituted by Punai Oraon wherein it has been stated that on 13.11.1989 he had gone to work in the potato field of Girdhari Oraon in the early morning and Ghuran Oraon as well as Bihari Oraon were working in the nearby filed having Sabal, Lathi and Dhelforwa with them. It is alleged that at about 7 A.M. Girdhari Oraon came near the accused pe
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....
The central legal point established is the right of private defence of property under section 103 of the Indian Penal Code, and its application in cases of land disputes and self-defence.
The importance of ocular testimony over medical evidence and the application of Section 34 of the IPC in proving common intention.
The conviction cannot be sustained due to significant contradictions in eyewitness testimony, undermining the prosecution's burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The necessity of corroborative evidence in cases of murder and the interpretation of common object under Section 149 IPC, emphasizing that mere presence at the scene does not equate to participation ....
The judgment underscores the principle that a conviction must be based on reliable and corroborated evidence, and that doubts in the prosecution's case must benefit the accused.
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
