Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD, JJ
Surendra Malar S/o Sitlu Malar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant Interlocutory Application is filed on behalf of Appellant, namely Surendra Malar for suspension of sentence in connection with judgment of conviction dated 9th July, 2021 and order of sentence dated 16th July, 2021, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Gumla in S.T. No. 50 of 2019, arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No. 42 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 873 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for Life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) and in default of payment of fine Simple Imprisonment for 12 months and the period of custody undergone during the trial has been directed to be set off.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has submitted that this is a case where the conviction is based solely upon the testimony of P.W.5, who even cannot be said to be trustworthy. It has been submitted that the testimony which has been given with respect to the nature of injury by the P.W.5 is not being corroborated from the medical evidence and as such in view of the wide contradiction between the ocular evidence and the me
Credible ocular evidence can uphold a conviction even if it contradicts medical evidence, provided it is consistent and trustworthy.
The court affirmed that credible eyewitness testimony and corroborative medical evidence are essential for upholding convictions under serious offenses.
The court emphasized the necessity of credible witness testimony for a conviction, ruling that inconsistencies in evidence justified the suspension of the appellant's sentence.
Eye-witness testimony corroborated by forensic evidence can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and minor contradictions do not undermine the credibility of such evidence.
A conviction cannot stand based solely on circumstantial evidence without direct eyewitness testimony, emphasizing the necessity for substantive proof.
Conviction for murder upheld based on circumstantial evidence and confession, with the court emphasizing the necessity for the accused to explain circumstances surrounding the crime where the victim ....
Suspension of sentence is justified when the appeal process is delayed significantly and key witness credibility is in question.
In cases involving sexual assault of minors, the consistent testimony of the victim, corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient for conviction, and such conviction justifies denial of suspension....
The court upheld the conviction for gang rape based on credible victim testimony, ruling that contradictions and co-accused acquittals do not automatically justify sentence suspension.
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
