Back
ANANDA SEN, SUBHASH CHAND
Ajit Barla – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Per Ananda Sen, J.
This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 20.11.2017 and order of sentence dated 27.11.2017 passed by Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner-V, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 652 of 2012, whereby and whereunder, the appellant having been found guilty of charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/-.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there are serious contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which damages the case of the prosecution. As per him, the accused was arrested from his house, whereas P.W. 4 stated that the appellant was arrested at the place of occurrence. He further argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive of commission of murder and when there was no dispute amongst the parties, why the deceased will be murdered by this appellant is a mystery. He also argued that P.W. 4, who claims to be an eye witness, in her evidence, stated that seeing the appellant along with murder weapon, she closed her eyes, thus according to the counsel for the appellant, P.W. 4 is not actual
Direct evidence from credible eyewitnesses is sufficient for conviction under Section 302 IPC, and motive is not essential in such cases.
The court established that a conviction for murder can be sustained on the basis of circumstantial evidence, provided that the evidence forms a complete chain that leads to the only reasonable conclu....
The court affirmed the conviction for murder under Section 302 and assault under Section 324, ruling that credible eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence met the burden of proof beyond reasonabl....
A conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC can be upheld on the reliable testimony of a single eyewitness, corroborated by medical evidence.
Direct eyewitness testimony, if credible, suffices for conviction regardless of motive, as established in this case involving murder under Section 302 of the IPC.
The testimony of injured witnesses is highly credible, and direct evidence can establish guilt without needing to prove motive.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence led to the appellant's acquittal.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and eyewitness testimony can suffice even without recovery of the murder weapon.
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
