Back
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, DEEPAK ROSHAN
Jogi Oraon @ Jogindra Oraon – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R. Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Ms. Kavita Kumari, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.09.2001 (sentence passed on 29.09.2001) passed by Shri Prashant Kumar, learned Sessions Judge, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 126 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fard beyan of Kunka Baraik who has stated that on 21.11.1997 he had come to Dumartoli and was staying with his in-law’s family for the last one week. The informant’s elder brother-in-law namely, Narain Baraik had 1.14 acres of land at Kumhar More and on that land, he was constructing a house under Indira Awaas Yojna. The informant was looking after the construction work along with his brother-in-law. It is alleged that in the night of 20.11.1997, while the informant was sleeping along with his brother-in-law, the accused persons variously armed had come and after abusing the brother-in-law of the informant ha
The conviction based on inconsistent eye-witness testimony was overturned, highlighting the necessity for credible evidence in criminal cases.
Eyewitness testimony, even with contradictions, can substantiate murder convictions when corroborated by forensic evidence showing the brutal nature of the crime.
The court confirmed that eyewitness testimonies, despite procedural lapses in FIR registration, sufficiently proved the common intention of the accused in a joint assault leading to conviction under ....
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under IPC, emphasizing the impulsive nature of the assault and the adequacy of the time already served as pu....
Conviction cannot stand when significant doubts arise due to contradictory testimonies and acquittal of co-accused on similar evidence, emphasizing the principle of parity in criminal proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of familial relationship, lack of criminal antecedents, and the prolonged duration of the criminal prosecution in deciding the ap....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of independent witnesses can lead to quashing of conviction.
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....
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
