Back
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, ANANDA SEN
Jitram Oraon, s/o Sri Birsa Oraon – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel for the State at length.
2. These appeals arises out of judgment of conviction dated 25.06.2015 and order of sentence dated 27.06.2015 in S.T. Case No. 29 of 2012/S.T. Case No. 34 of 2012 whereby and whereunder learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga convicted the appellant, namely, Jitram Oraon under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under section 302 IPC, however no sentence under section 201 IPC was inflicted upon him. Further appellants, namely, Birsa Oraon @ Birsu Oraon, Dinesh Oraon, Pancham Oraon were convicted only under section 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for 3 years under section 201 of IPC.
3. The appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 624 of 2015 is the husband of the deceased whereas the other appellants in Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 561 of 2020 are other in-laws.
4. The prosecution case arises from the fardbeyan of PW4 who is the mother of the deceased. She stated that her daughter was married with the appellant Jitram Oraon sometime in May 2005 and she was residing at her matrimonial home and was b
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion or circumstantial evidence is insufficient for conviction under IPC sections 302 and 201.
The prosecution's successful establishment of the chain of events and the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act placed the burden on the appellants to prove otherwise.
Burden of proof – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then....
The trial Court's failure to put material circumstances to the accused during examination under Section 313 of the CrPC constituted a serious irregularity, warranting the acquittal of the appellant o....
The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fac....
The judgment establishes the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The application of Section 106 of t....
The prosecution must establish basic facts before invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act; failure to do so results in the benefit of doubt for the accused.
The court affirmed that under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, a husband must explain circumstances of an unnatural death occurring in a shared residence; failure to do so may lead to an adverse infe....
The burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act places a duty on the accused to offer a plausible explanation for the circumstances of the crime, especially in cases of circumstantial evide....
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
