Back
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SUBHASH CHAND
Prakash Balmuchu, S/o. Late Aluris Balmuchu – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal, under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30th November, 1994 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 543 of 1990, whereby and whereunder, the sole appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 376 , 302 and 201 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence committed under Section 302 and has been further sentence to five years for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. and both the sentences passed were directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution story in brief as per the allegation made in the Fard Beyan by one Joseph Vengra, father of the deceased at about 8:30 a.m. on 29.12.1989, reads as under:
It has been alleged that the informant’s daughter Subnam Vengra on 28.12.1989 in the morning was playing in the village along with other children. The informant saw his daughter playing at about 11:00 a.m. by the side of the house of his maternal uncle Kamil Balmuchu. The informant at about 12 o’clock searched for his daughter f
The admissibility of a confession under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the mandatory provision of inflicting a fine under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution failed to establish a sufficient chain of circumstantial evidence to link the appellant to the murder, leading to acquittal.
Confessions of co-accused cannot serve as substantive evidence; corroboration from other evidence is essential for conviction.
Confessions of co-accused cannot serve as substantive evidence; corroboration from other evidence is essential for conviction.
Extra-judicial confessions made in police presence are inadmissible if not proven voluntary, requiring solid evidence for circumstantial convictions.
Rape and murder of minor girl –Acquittal under - Execution of crime doubtful - Incident does not appear to have happened in the manner in which the prosecution want the Court to believe it had happen....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and weak evidence or absence of corroboration undermines conviction in murder cases.
The court ruled that circumstantial evidence and confessions were insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.
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
