Back
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Md. Sahabuddin – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State.
1.1 This Criminal appeal is directed Judgment of conviction dated 16.03.2012 and order of sentence dated 19.03.2012, passed by learned District & Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad, in S.T. Case No. 286 of 1998, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default, further to undergo SI for one month.
2. As per prosecution, one Ajay Ram was allegedly caught while committing house burglary in the house of accused, Md. Sahabuddin in the intervening night of 14/15.10.1996 who was lynched by the appellants.
3. As per fardbeyan of Santoshi Ram recorded on 15.10.1996 his son, Ajay Ram was living in a rented house of one Rameshwar Saw and was working in a shop named STAR DECORATOR situated at Dari Mohalla. On the said night, his son had entered into the house of Md. Sahabuddin and was caught by him and his brother, Md. Saukat Ali and he was assaulted by them. On hulla, about 200-300 people gathered there and all of them started beating up his son. Consequently, he s
The judgment establishes that in cases of mob violence, individual culpability can still be determined based on credible witness testimony, and that the presence of a mob does not negate the responsi....
A single witness's testimony can only sustain a conviction if wholly reliable; the presence of multiple hostile witnesses necessitates rigorous evidence scrutiny and adherence to the principle of par....
Eyewitness testimony, even from an interested witness, can sustain a conviction if corroborated by credible evidence and circumstances.
A conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of a reliable witness, especially when corroborated by medical evidence, and the presence of adequate light at the scene can validate eyewitness id....
The prosecution failed to prove the charges of murder and unlawful assembly beyond reasonable doubt due to unreliable witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence.
The testimony of relatives is not inherently suspect and can be reliable if corroborated by evidence, while conspiracy requires proof of prior agreement, which was lacking in this case.
Omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses to the investigating officer, which are significant and relevant to the case, can amount to material contradictions that affect the credibility of....
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
