Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J., ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.
Charan Hansda – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P.
2. Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgment, they are being disposed of by this common order.
3. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22.01.2000 passed by Mr. Vinay Kumar Sinha, Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No.75 of 1997 / 24 of 1997, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 I.P.C and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life.
4. The prosecution case arises out of the Fard Bayan of Phool Murmu recorded on 06.02.1996 in which it has been stated that the husband of the informant namely Parmeshwar Hansda is the eldest of his five brothers. All the brothers stay separate with their families. It has been stated that in the village Bandhana festival was going on which ended yesterday. The informant has one son namely Lucas Hansda and one daughter namely Betty Hansda. On 05.02.1996 the entire family of the informant had dinner after which the son of the informant went to a nearby village to ce
The court upheld the conviction for murder under Sections 302/34 IPC, affirming that the evidence of witnesses sufficiently established the premeditated assault leading to death.
The prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt in the murder case due to inconsistent eyewitness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence.
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under IPC, emphasizing the impulsive nature of the assault and the adequacy of the time already served as pu....
Conviction for murder upheld based on consistent eyewitness accounts despite concerns about the independence of witnesses, highlighting the relevance of cohesive testimonies over minor contradictions....
Eyewitness testimony must be credible and reliable; an unconscious witness cannot provide valid evidence against an accused.
The court ruled that reliance on a solitary eyewitness was misplaced due to inconsistencies, leading to the conclusion that the conviction was not supported by reliable evidence.
The conviction based on inconsistent eye-witness testimony was overturned, highlighting the necessity for credible evidence in criminal cases.
Eyewitness identification deemed unreliable due to lack of corroboration and unnatural conduct, leading to the reversal of conviction.
The court emphasized the necessity of credible evidence for conviction, finding significant contradictions in witness testimonies and lack of physical evidence, leading to reasonable doubt about the ....
Eyewitness testimony in rural settings is reliable, and the absence of motive does not undermine the conviction for murder under Section 302/34 IPC.
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
