Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J., SANJAY PRASAD, J.
Shiv Sao – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Order :
I.A. No. 637 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant no. 1, namely, Shiv Sao, under Section 430 of the BNSS , 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 01.10.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa in Sessions Trial No. 46 of 2023 arising out of Ranka P.S. Case No. 163 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. No. 1703 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been found convicted for the offence under Sections 302 /34, 201/34 IPC; and sentenced to undergo RI for life under Section 302 /34 IPC with fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of fine further directed to undergo RI for one year; and further sentenced for RI years for the offence under Section 201 /34 IPC.
2. It has been contended on behalf of appellant no. 1 that it is a case based upon circumstantial evidence by applying the principle as laid down under Section 27 of the EVIDENCE ACT on the basis of the fact that the recovery of sabbal and other incriminating articles, which were said to be used in commission of crime, has been recovered on the basis of confession made by one Shambhu Prasad Gupta, who is appellant no. 2 herein.
3. It has been contended that no evidence
A co-accused's confession cannot solely result in the conviction of another accused if direct evidence implicating them is absent, justifying suspension of sentence.
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires corroborative proof; lack of such evidence warrants suspension of sentence.
The prosecution must establish charges beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of a weapon without corroborating evidence is insufficient for conviction.
Conviction for murder can be upheld based on confessional statements and corroborative evidence, even if some evidence is lacking, such as blood on the weapon.
A confession made under duress cannot be considered valid evidence for conviction, especially in the absence of corroborating eyewitness testimony.
Inconsistencies in witness testimony undermine conviction; a prima facie case supports suspension of sentence pending appeal.
The court ruled that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for suspension of sentence, as the victim's testimony was corroborated by medical evidence.
The theory of last seen together is insufficient for conviction without corroborative evidence and motive, warranting suspension of sentence.
In murder convictions, post-conviction suspension of sentence is rare; courts assess evidence's prima facie durability and must have compelling justifications.
The court established that a lack of direct evidence and prolonged custody can justify the suspension of a sentence under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C.
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
