Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Karan Kumar Singh @ Ajay Kumar Singh @ Karan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
I.A. No. 1003 of 2025:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant for suspension of sentence dated 19.10.2023 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, F.T.C. (C.A.W.) Bermo at Tenughat in connection with G.R. Case No. 763 of 2021, arising out of Bokaro Thermal P.S. Case No. 56/2021 whereby and whereunder, the appellant was convicted to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 /34 of the I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand rupees) and further directed to undergo R.I. for three years with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 201 /34 of the I.P.C with default stipulation.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the prosecution has miserably failed in establishing the charge said to be committed by the appellant under Sections 302 /34 and201/34 of the I.P.C.
3. It has been submitted by referring the testimony of P.W.6, who has been considered to be an eye-witness, which according to the appellant cannot be said to be an eye-witness. Since, there are several contradictions in his testimony.
4. Learned counsel based upon aforesaid grounds
The court affirmed that credible eyewitness testimony and corroborative medical evidence are essential for upholding convictions under serious offenses.
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.
Credible ocular evidence can uphold a conviction even if it contradicts medical evidence, provided it is consistent and trustworthy.
A conviction cannot stand based solely on circumstantial evidence without direct eyewitness testimony, emphasizing the necessity for substantive proof.
Eye-witness testimony corroborated by forensic evidence can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and minor contradictions do not undermine the credibility of such evidence.
Suspension of sentence is justified when the appeal process is delayed significantly and key witness credibility is in question.
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 ....
Inconsistencies in witness testimony can create reasonable doubt, leading to suspension of sentence pending appeal.
Bail may be granted considering long custody, witness reliability over time, and the age of the appellant, which influence the decision on 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
