Back
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SUBHASH CHAND
Anup Kumar Mandal – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) :
Both the appeals have been filed against the common judgment of conviction dated 23.07.1994 and order of sentence dated 27.07.1994 and as such both these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by common order.
2. Both criminal appeals have been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 23.07.1994 and order of sentence dated 27.07.1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-II, Godda in Sessions Case No.143 of 1993/19 of 93/8 of 94 by which all the appellants have been convicted for commission of offence under Sections 302 /34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and further accused Anup Kumar Mandal (appellant no.1 in Cr. Appeal (DB) no.434 of 1994) has also been convicted under Sections 307 and 324 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and all the appellants/accused have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Sections 302 /34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . Accused no.1 (Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 434 of 1994 (P)) has further been sentenced to undergo R.I for five years under Section 307 I.P.C and R.I. for two years under Section 324 I.P.C. Sentences of convicted accused no.1, A
Key legal principles established include the standards of eyewitness reliability and the requirements for proving possession of intent in conspiracy cases, emphasizing that absence of evidence negate....
The presumption of innocence is paramount in criminal trials; an acquittal should only be overturned if the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was not demonstrated in this case.
The court emphasized the prosecution's burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting inconsistencies and the absence of independent corroboration in witness testimonies.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the testimony of witnesses, even if related to the deceased, should not be automatically discarded, and minor discrepancies in the evidence sh....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of independent witnesses can lead to quashing of conviction.
A conviction can be sustained on the testimony of a single eyewitness if deemed credible, despite challenges regarding corroboration and the absence of the Investigating Officer.
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
