Back
ANANDA SEN, GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Ashok Singh, son of Rajbali Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ananda Sen, J.
This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 26.04.2016 and order of sentence dated 27.04.2016 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-III, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 204 of 2015, whereby and whereunder, the appellant having been found guilty of charge under Sections 324 and 302 of Indian Penal Code and has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/-for the offence under Section 302 IPC and other sentence for the other offence.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that beyond the weight of the evidence, the Trial Court has convicted the appellant. He further submitted that there is no direct evidence against the appellant, thus the involvement of the appellant is easily doubted. He also submitted that the witnesses are hearsay and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of this appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. He also argued that the deposition of the witnesses have not been weighted properly and one will feel that same is full of contradictions. He also argued that non-recovery of weapon, which was used in murder of the deceased is fatal for th
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and eyewitness testimony can suffice even without recovery of the murder weapon.
The court clarified the distinction between murder and culpable homicide, emphasizing that sudden altercations without premeditated intent can lower the charge under IPC.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence led to the appellant's acquittal.
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 cannot stand when there are significant contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, raising doubts about the prosecution's case.
The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants caused the victim's death, leading to their acquittal.
Murder conviction quashed for lack of proof that specific appellants inflicted fatal blow; eyewitness contradictions, medical evidence allowing death by fall, parity with acquitted co-accused, and un....
Direct evidence from credible eyewitnesses is sufficient for conviction under Section 302 IPC, and motive is not essential in such cases.
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
