Back
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, DEEPAK ROSHAN
Sukhram Bhakat @ Sukhram Bhagat @ Sukram Bhagat, S/o Bhola Nath Bhakat – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Per R. Mukhopadhyay, J.
1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P assisted by Mr. Pramod Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the informant.
2. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.08.2015 (sentence passed on 2.09.2015) passed by Shri Nikesh Kumar Sinha, Learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in S.T. No. 04 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default in payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the Fardbeyan of Lakhi Pad Bhakat recorded on 05.10.2012 wherein it has been stated that at around 1.30 P.M. his father had left the house for the house of Sharad Pramanik for making payment of the dues for purchasing chicken. It has been alleged that after 10-15 minutes Shankar Pramanik had raised an alarm that Sukhram Bhakat (appellant) has committed the murder of Suchan at which
The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to unreliable witness testimonies and insufficient circumstantial evidence.
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.
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to establish the shared common intention of the accused in committing the murder.
The court emphasized the prosecution's burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting inconsistencies and the absence of independent corroboration in witness testimonies.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence led to the appellant's acquittal.
The judgment emphasizes the significance of circumstantial evidence in establishing guilt in murder cases under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
A conviction under Section 302 IPC can be upheld based solely on the testimony of the informant if corroborative evidence exists, even in absence of independent witnesses.
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
