Back
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Gangeshwar Chaudhary, S/o. Sri Jagarnath Choudhary – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal, filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 23.09.2011 and order of sentence dated 26.09.2011 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa in S.T. Case No.351 of 2008, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life with fine of Rs.3000/- each under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years with fine of Rs.1000/- each under Sections 201/34 and in default of payment of fine, they have further been directed to undergo two months simple imprisonment.
2. This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, deems it fit and proper to refer the background of prosecution case, as per fardbeyan of informant, which reads as under:
3. As per the fardbeyan of the informant-Ramgulas Chaudhary that the deceased (Indrawati Devi) is the daughter of his ‘sarhu’, Mundrika Choudhary, who had died ten years ago from the date of lodging of the fardbeyan. The economical condition of Mundrika Chaudhary was no
Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan VS State Of Gujarat Etc. - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1357: This case appears to articulate settled principles on circumstantial evidence (complete chain required) and appellate reversal of acquittal (weight to presumption of innocence). No negative treatment indicators; phrased as standard ("Courts ought to have," "it should give proper weight"), suggesting positive reliance.
Balram Prasad Agrawal VS State Of Bihar - 1997 1 Supreme 35: States prosecution burden but shifts some onus to accused in suicide-cruelty context once cruelty shown. No treatment keywords; presented as applicable principle without criticism.
Joshinder Yadav VS State of Bihar - 2014 1 Supreme 367: Declares viscera examination "of utmost importance" in poisoning cases. Phrased as settled rule ("settled principle" not used but imperative tone), no negative indicators.
Shyamal Ghosh VS State of West Bengal - 2012 4 Supreme 481: Lists multiple "settled principle[s] of law" on hostile witnesses, delayed examination, related witnesses, investigation defects, contradictions, and Section 34 IPC. Explicitly uses "settled principle," indicating good law followed in subsequent cases.
Dhanaj Singh @ Shera VS State Of Punjab - 2004 2 Supreme 494: Asserts IO negligence does not affect prosecution credibility when corroborated by eyewitnesses/medical evidence. No negative treatment; stated as authoritative rule ("When direct testimony...cannot affect").
Ram Bihari Yadav VS State Of Bihar - 1998 4 Supreme 178: Outlines "Important Points" on dying declaration probative value, form, and mental fitness certification, with conditions for acceptability. No negative indicators; presented as guiding principles ("Generally," "no reason...should not be accepted").
TULSHIRAM SAHADU SURYAWANSHI VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 623: Treatment unclear. States prosecution must complete chain in circumstantial cases, similar to Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan VS State Of Gujarat Etc. - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1357, but lacks explicit positive phrasing like "settled" or treatment keywords. Could be followed (as basic principle) or distinguished/questioned; no clear indicators, so categorized as uncertain.
In cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances consistent only with the accused's guilt, excluding any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
The court upheld the conviction under IPC Section 302, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt without the accused providing an adeq....
Circumstantial evidence must be fully established and form a complete chain, with no reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt for a conviction to be upheld.
In criminal law, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of direct evidence can lead to acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a complete and conclusive chain of evidence in cases of circumstantial evidence, the importance of proper appreciation of evide....
(1) Murder – Circumstances howsoever strong cannot take place of proof and guilt of accused have to be proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.(2) Burden of Proof – Section 106 of Evidence Act ....
(1) Murder – If in a case based on circumstantial evidence, accused evades response to an incriminating question or offers a response which is not true, such a response, in itself, would become an ad....
The judgment establishes the application of circumstantial evidence in dowry death cases, emphasizing the burden of proof on the accused, the need for a complete chain of evidence, and the rejection ....
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
