Back
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, DEEPAK ROSHAN
Baneshwar Nagesia @ Bawan (since deceased) – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Special P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.05.2017 (sentenced passed on 23.05.2017) passed by Shri Abni Ranjan Kumar Sinha, learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 311 of 2010, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 328/34, 302/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each for the offence u/s 302/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence u/s 328/34 IPC and in default in payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, rigorous imprisonment for 14 years along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence u/s 120B IPC. It was further ordered that out of Rs. 70,000/-to be paid by each convict, Rs. 50,000/- eac
The court emphasized that weak circumstantial evidence and lack of direct witnesses cannot sustain a conviction for murder.
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere circumstantial evidence without a clear chain connecting the accused to the crime is insufficient for conviction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence and poisoning. The judgmen....
A negative viscera report does not preclude liability for poisoning if other evidence establishes the accused's guilt.
(1) Abetment of suicide and attempt to commit suicide – If accused gave incorrect or false answers during course of his statement under Section 313 CrPC, court can draw adverse inference against him.....
The court reaffirmed the principle that in domestic homicide cases, the accused must explain injuries found on the deceased, or their silence may imply guilt.
In a case arising out of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove each of the circumstances relied upon by them and the circumstances so relied upon should form a chain of events connect....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in circumstantial evidence cases, where mental health concerns can significantly impact culpability.
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
