Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J., NAVNEET KUMAR, J.
Mukesh Majhi @ Mukesh Murmu Majhi, Son Of Late Mansha Murmu – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
I.A. No.839 of 2025
1. On earlier occasion one interlocutory application being I.A. No.5372 of 2024 filed by the appellant, was dismissed as not pressed.
2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension of sentence dated 10.03.2023 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella, Kharsawan, in connection with Sessions Trial No.75 of 2020, arising out of Seraikella P.S. Case No.54 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. Case No.385 of 2020, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life along with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo S.I. for six months. He has further been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, he has further been sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months.
3. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the conviction is based upon the evidence, even though, there is no eye witness to the occurrence.
4. It has been submitted that even the eviden
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 ....
The central legal point established is the consideration of the totality of facts and circumstances, including the sufficiency of evidence and the time served, in deciding to suspend the 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.
Credible ocular evidence can uphold a conviction even if it contradicts medical evidence, provided it is consistent and trustworthy.
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.
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires corroborative proof; lack of such evidence warrants suspension of sentence.
The theory of last seen together is insufficient for conviction without corroborative evidence and motive, warranting suspension of sentence.
The court affirmed that credible eyewitness testimony and corroborative medical evidence are essential for upholding convictions under serious offenses.
The nature and gravity of the offence influenced the Court's decision on the application for suspending the sentence.
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
