RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, DEEPAK ROSHAN
Konta Munda – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr. B.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned Spl. P.P. for the respondent-State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.03.1998 (sentence passed on 07.03.1998) passed by Shri R.N. Verma, learned IInd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, in Sessions Trial No. 166/1997/G.R. No. 576/1996, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Budhram Pahan, in which, it has been stated that on 21.09.1996 at about 8:30 P.M. his son Pandu Pahan went to the paddy field to irrigate the land by taking water from a nearby pond. The informant after sometime proceeded for the same place and when he reached near the field he saw in moonlight the named accused persons variously armed chasing his son in order to kill him. The informant had hid himself behind the bush and had witnessed the occurrence. It has been alleged that when his son reached the field of Devi Dayal, the accused persons intercepted him and committed assault on h
Eyewitness identification deemed unreliable due to lack of corroboration and unnatural conduct, leading to the reversal of conviction.
The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to unreliable witness testimonies and insufficient circumstantial evidence.
Point of Law : Offence of Murder - Conviction set aside - Benefit of doubt - Evidence of witnesses do not energise prosecution case and falsity of allegations levelled against appellants lie threadba....
The conviction upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, despite the absence of independent witnesses, affirming the trial court's judgment.
Eyewitness testimony in rural settings is reliable, and the absence of motive does not undermine the conviction for murder under Section 302/34 IPC.
The court ruled that reliance on a solitary eyewitness was misplaced due to inconsistencies, leading to the conclusion that the conviction was not supported by reliable evidence.
Conviction and sentence cannot be sustained where evidence of material witnesses is fraught with major discrepancies.
Conviction for murder upheld based on consistent eyewitness accounts despite concerns about the independence of witnesses, highlighting the relevance of cohesive testimonies over minor contradictions....
The conviction for murder based solely on a solitary eyewitness's testimony was overturned due to contradictions and lack of corroboration from other witnesses.
The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt leads to acquittal.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.