Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Mahesh Ganjhu, S/o Jethan Ganjhu – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
I.A. No. 13670 of 2024:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant for suspension of sentence dated 22.07.2023 passed in POCSO Case No.11 of 2022 by the learned Special Judge (POCSO)-cum-District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.290 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302, 376(D) & 201/34 of IPC and has been directed to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.10,000/- u/s 302 of IPC. Further, the appellant has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 25 years alongwith fine of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 376(D) of IPC. The appellant has further been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years alongwith fine of Rs. 2,000/- u/s 201 of IPC and in default of payment of fine the appellant has further been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 6 months.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the appellant has been convicted by applying the provision as contained under Section 27 of the Evidence Act since as per the prosecution version, the dead body and the incriminating material which was sai
Inconsistencies in witness testimony undermine conviction; a prima facie case supports suspension of sentence pending appeal.
A co-accused's confession cannot solely result in the conviction of another accused if direct evidence implicating them is absent, justifying suspension of sentence.
The prosecution must establish charges beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of a weapon without corroborating evidence is insufficient for conviction.
Conviction for murder can be upheld based on confessional statements and corroborative evidence, even if some evidence is lacking, such as blood on the weapon.
(1) Accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ guilty before a court can convict accused – Last-seen theory comes into play where time-gap between point of time when accused and deceased were last see....
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires corroborative proof; lack of such evidence warrants suspension of sentence.
(1) There should not be acquittal of guilty or conviction of innocent person.(2) Appeal against acquittal – It is only in rarest of rare cases, where High Court, on an absolutely wrong process of rea....
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to secure a conviction, and the burden of proof remains on the prosecution throughout.
The court ruled the victim's consistent testimony sufficiently supports conviction under the POCSO Act, thus rejecting the suspension of sentence.
Conviction based solely on examination-in-chief without considering cross-examination violates principles of fairness and transparency in criminal jurisprudence.
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
