Back
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J., ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.
Kiran Lakra @ Oraon wife of Sanjay Lakra – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)
Heard Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Special P. P. for the respondent.
2. Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgment, the same are being disposed of by this common order.
3. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 04.10.1997 passed by Shri Anant Vijay Singh, learned 3rd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S. T. No. 73 of 1994 whereby and whereunder the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 232 of 1997 ® has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 109 /302, 307/34 and 452/34 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 109 /302 I.P.C.; 7 years imprisonment for the offence under Section 307 /34 I.P.C. and 3 years imprisonment for the offence under Section 452 /34 I.P.C., while the appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 258 of 1997 ® have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 307 /34, 302/34 and 452/34 I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 /34 I.P.C.; 7 years imprisonment for the offence under Section 307 /34 and 3 yea
The conviction cannot be sustained due to significant contradictions in eyewitness testimony, undermining the prosecution's burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions in testimonies undermine the case.
A conviction cannot stand when there are significant contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, raising doubts about the prosecution's case.
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.
Conviction under IPC 302/34 upheld on reliable sole eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence and witnesses, despite minor discrepancies and non-examination of investigating officer/docto....
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.
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any significant doubt arising from inconsistencies in evidence must benefit the accused.
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
