Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ
Mathur Mandal, S/o Hemlal Mandal – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
1. Heard Mr. Hemant Kr. Shikarwar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashishtha, learned Spl. P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16-04-1999 (sentence passed on 17- 04-1999) passed by Sri Prashant Kumar, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in S.T. No. 188 of 1996/53 of 1996 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Sohan Mandal recorded on 08-08-1995 in which it has been stated that in the night of 07-08-1995, when the informant was returning home after easing himself, he saw in the alley Mathur Mandal(appellant) assaulting Shakti Mandal with fists and pressing his neck. By the time the informant could reach the said place, Shakti Mandal fell down and became unconscious. When on alarm, Gobind Mandal reached at the place of occurrence, Mathur Mandal had fled away. Several villagers had assembled by then, who put Shakti Mandal in a cot and carried him to his house. After sometime, Shakti Mandal expired. T
The conviction for murder based solely on a solitary eyewitness's testimony was overturned due to contradictions and lack of corroboration from other witnesses.
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.
Unreliable eyewitness testimony cannot support a conviction, leading to the reversal of a murder conviction based on insufficient evidence.
Eyewitness testimony in rural settings is reliable, and the absence of motive does not undermine the conviction for murder under Section 302/34 IPC.
The credibility of eyewitness testimonies, especially from witnesses with a relationship to the deceased, and the appreciation of evidence considering the socio-economic and educational background of....
Point of Law : Offence of Murder - Conviction set aside - Benefit of doubt - Evidence of witnesses do not energise prosecution case and falsity of allegations levelled against appellants lie threadba....
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.
Conviction and sentence cannot be sustained where evidence of material witnesses is fraught with major discrepancies.
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
