Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, ARUN KUMAR RAI
Dilu Lohra, son of Firu Lohra – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned APP.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.04.1999 (sentenced passed on 17.04.1999) passed by Shri S.N. Singh, learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 34 of 1998, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence u/s 302 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence u/s 324 I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Dore Uraon recorded on 09.08.1997 in which it has been stated that around 3.00 p.m., Dilu Lohra (appellant) brandishing a knife was abusing the villagers. When the villagers tried to reason with Dilu Lohra, he instead inflicted knif
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on overwhelming eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, emphasizing that the absence of motive does not negate guilt.
The court emphasized that contradictions in eyewitness testimonies undermine the prosecution's case, necessitating the reversal of convictions due to insufficient evidence.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies led to the reversal of conviction.
A conviction cannot stand when there are significant contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, raising doubts about the prosecution's case.
The mere presence of an accused at the crime scene does not establish complicity in the crime without clear evidence of shared intention.
The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt based on consistent and trustworthy evidence, including eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and incriminating cir....
Conviction under Sections 302 and 326 of IPC requires credible ocular evidence, with emphasis on eyewitness credibility, especially from injured parties, establishing guilt despite differing roles am....
Conviction for homicide upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony; acquitted parties lacked sufficient evidence of participation in crime.
The court affirmed that involvement in a scuffle leading to murder, even without eyewitnesses to the assault, suffices for conviction under common intention.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder under Section 302 and assault under Section 324, ruling that credible eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence met the burden of proof beyond reasonabl....
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
Listen Article