Back
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Jetha Kachhap – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Above appellants have preferred the above captioned appeals assailing their conviction and sentence dated 07.05.2022 / 12.05.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti, in Sessions Trial No. 860 of 2013(A), arising out of Karra P.S. Case No.64 of 2011 (G.R. Case No.381 of 2011) registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act for committing murder of one Manoj Mahto, wherein, the appellant – Jetha Kachhap was held guilty for committing offences under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C. and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and appellant – Sanatan Swansi was held guilty for committing offence under Sections 302 / 34 of I.P.C. and both the appellants have been awarded sentence of imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. One Lakh for the offence punishable under sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant – Jetha Kachhap has been further sentenced to R.I. for five years along with fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently with default s
The court emphasized the necessity of credible evidence and reliable witness testimony for establishing guilt in criminal cases, leading to the reversal of the appellants' convictions.
The presumption of innocence is paramount in criminal trials; an acquittal should only be overturned if the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was not demonstrated in this case.
Conviction for murder by unlawful assembly sustainable on reliable sole eyewitness to killing, corroborated by medical evidence and abduction witnesses, despite FIR delay, witness non-examination, an....
The significance of corroborative eyewitness testimony in criminal cases, with minor discrepancies not undermining evidence credibility, unless they affect core facts established beyond reasonable do....
The main legal point established is that the prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the lack of concrete evidence can lead to the setting aside of a conviction.
The court affirmed that eyewitness testimony, even from relatives, can be credible and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in murder cases.
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
Prosecution has failed to prove charges levelled against accused persons under Sections 302/34, 201 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act by any reliable, cogent and independent evidence to hilt beyond reas....
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
