IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, SANJAY PRASAD
Sripat Marandi @ Sri Pati Marandi, S/o Gayna Marandi – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
1. Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. P.K. Appu, learned A.P.P. in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 883 of 2012 and Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, learned Spl.P.P. in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 653 of 2012.
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 10.05.2012 (sentence passed on 14.05.2012) passed by Sri Shrikant Roy, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 172/2007 whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 /149 IPC and have also been fined Rs. 5,000/- under Section 302 IPC. No separate sentence under Section 148 IPC has been passed. The appellant is to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, if the fine amount is not deposited.
4. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Dinesh Marandi recorded on 25.04.2007, in which it has been stated that in t
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 must be credible and reliable; an unconscious witness cannot provide valid evidence against an accused.
The court emphasized that contradictions in eyewitness testimonies undermine the prosecution's case, necessitating the reversal of convictions due to insufficient evidence.
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....
The court upheld a conviction for murder based on eyewitness testimonies, affirming that the familiarity of rural witnesses with the accused overcame visibility doubts.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of specific and credible evidence in establishing the guilt of the accused, as well as the need for a holistic consideration of evid....
The conviction for murder based solely on a solitary eyewitness's testimony was overturned due to contradictions and lack of corroboration from other witnesses.
In a case with competing allegations, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, especially when inconsistencies arise regarding injuries sustained by both parties.
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 prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt in the murder case due to inconsistent eyewitness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.