Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J., SANJAY PRASAD, J.
Budhram Tiriya @ Lala Tiriya – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
I.A. No. 1184 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of above-named appellants, under Section 430 of the BNSS , 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 30.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Chaibasa in S.T. Case No. 110 of 2021 arising out of Noamundi P.S. Case No. 01 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the appellants has been found guilty of the offence under Section 302 /34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine each of them has to undergo further RI for six months.
2. It has been contended on behalf of appellants that it is a case where the judgment of conviction is fully based upon the testimony of P.W. 8, who has been considered to be eye-witness to the occurrence but on consideration of the testimony in entirety it would be evident that P.W. 8 cannot be said to be eye-witness since there is wide contradiction in the testimony of P.W. 8, as recorded in his cross-examination.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence.
4. While on the other hand, learned APP app
Eye-witness testimony corroborated by forensic evidence can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and minor contradictions do not undermine the credibility of such evidence.
A conviction cannot stand based solely on circumstantial evidence without direct eyewitness testimony, emphasizing the necessity for substantive proof.
Credible ocular evidence can uphold a conviction even if it contradicts medical evidence, provided it is consistent and trustworthy.
The credibility of an eye witness can be undermined by their conduct during the incident, affecting the sufficiency of evidence for conviction.
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 court emphasized the necessity of credible witness testimony for a conviction, ruling that inconsistencies in evidence justified the suspension of the appellant's sentence.
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 court affirmed that credible eyewitness testimony and corroborative medical evidence are essential for upholding convictions under serious offenses.
The court affirmed the conviction under the POCSO Act, ruling that the trial court properly assessed the competency of the child witness, whose consistent testimony supported the prosecution's case.
The court ruled the victim's consistent testimony sufficiently supports conviction under the POCSO Act, thus rejecting the suspension of 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
