Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, ARUN KUMAR RAI
Ribu Mahato son of Jagannath Mahato – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R. Mukhopadhyay, J.
1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants assisted by Mrs. Sunita Kumari, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, 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 30.08.1995 passed by Shri Paras Nath Sinha, learned Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa in S.T No. 171 of 1991 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life.
4. The prosecution case arises out of the Fardbayan of Suchan Mahato recorded on 29.12.1989 in which it has been stated that last night at 7.00-7.30 pm the informant was in his house when his brother-in-law and Mukhiya Amin Chandra Mahato both of village Bansa had come and all of them had chicken and rice for dinner. After having dinner, the Mukhiya expressed his intention of sleeping in the house of the brother-in- law of the informant namely Jhari Mahato. Both his brother-in- law and the Mukhiya left for the house of the br
The court held that oral dying declarations require corroboration to be considered substantive evidence, especially when the identity of the accused is in doubt.
A conviction under IPC requires reliable evidence; mere last seen theory without corroboration cannot sustain a guilty verdict.
The main legal point established is that the prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the lack of concrete evidence can lead to the setting aside of a conviction.
The significance of corroborative eyewitness testimony in criminal cases, with minor discrepancies not undermining evidence credibility, unless they affect core facts established beyond reasonable do....
The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on credible eyewitness testimony and a valid oral dying declaration, underscoring that quality evidence outweighs the lack of independent witnesses.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on a credible dying declaration corroborated by medical evidence, establishing the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving the place of occurrence, reliability of oral dying declarations, and substantial evidence of common intention in criminal cases.
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
