Back
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Chandan Hansda, Son of Late Babulal Hansda – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
Heard learned counsel for appellant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
2. Above named sole appellant has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence dated 27.09.2014/29.09.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-Ist, Seraikella in Sessions Trail No. 47/2006 for the offences under Section 302 and 201/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section 302 and further R.I. of 4 years along with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 201/34 of the I.P.C with default stipulation.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 14.01.2006, informant Anil Hembram along with father Upal Hembram had gone to see cock fight at village Podogora. In the evening, at about 06:00 PM, informant left the place saying his father that he is returning by his bicycle and he has to come on foot. It is further alleged that the informant’s father did not return in the night then, in the next day morning, he started searching his father and enquired with several villagers and relatives, but no clue was found.
Conviction based solely on suspicion is insufficient; legal proof is required to establish guilt in criminal cases.
Conviction requires credible evidence; mere suspicion and contradictions among witnesses cannot sustain a guilty verdict.
The reliance on suspicion without substantive evidence to convict is a serious legal error; convictions must be based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Point of Law : Offence of Murder – Conviction set aside – Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of circumstances does not show link to each other.
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the last seen theory and the accused's failure to explain the circumstances of the death.
The court emphasized that conviction requires reliable, corroborative evidence, and inconsistencies in witness testimony led to the reversal of the conviction.
Conviction under circumstantial evidence requires proof of an unbroken link of evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not merely suspicion.
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be reliable and corroborated; mere reliance on the last seen theory is insufficient for conviction.
The absence of corroborative evidence from reliable witnesses and the failure of the prosecution to establish a motive led to the overturning of the conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
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
