Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, JJ
Anita Soren, D/o Divilal Soren @ Devisal Soren – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
I.A. No.11830 of 2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1515 of 2024
&
I.A. No.11834 of 2024 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1493 of 2024
1. The instant interlocutory applications have been filed under Section 430(1) of the BNSS for suspension of sentence dated 28.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dumka in connection with Sessions Trial No.73 of 2023 arising out of Jama P.S. Case No.55 of 2022 whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code each, in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for six months and further, R.I. for seven years with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for three months.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the conviction is based upon circumstantial evidence even without completion of chain.
3. It has been contended that the recovery which has been shown to be on the basis of the confessional statement of Shivani Kisku which is of garment said to be used in commission of crime recovere
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires corroborative proof; lack of such evidence warrants suspension of sentence.
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 theory of last seen together is insufficient for conviction without corroborative evidence and motive, warranting suspension of sentence.
The prosecution must establish charges beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of a weapon without corroborating evidence is insufficient for conviction.
A confession made under duress cannot be considered valid evidence for conviction, especially in the absence of corroborating eyewitness testimony.
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.
The legal principle established is that a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence must be supported by strong and conclusive proof, and the absence of such evidence can lead to the suspens....
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 ....
The court has the discretion to suspend substantive sentences based on the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and after scrutinizing the record of the trial court.
The court ruled that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for suspension of sentence, as the victim's testimony was corroborated by medical evidence.
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
