Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ
Barka Soren Son Of Late Marnu Soren – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
I.A. No. 11946 of 2024
The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430(1) of the BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence of the appellants in connection with the judgment of conviction dated 27.08.2024 and order of sentence dated 29.08.2024 passed in Sessions Trial No. 177 of 2019 arising out of Borio P.S. Case No. 39 of 2019 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Sahibganj whereby and where under, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and a default sentence of S.I. for 3 months.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that on perusal of the testimony of P.W.3, who is considered to be an eye witness by the learned Trial Court, it would be evident that his testimony cannot be said to be trustworthy if the entire conduct of the said witness is taken into consideration.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the testimony of P.W.3 who has stated that he was accompanying the deceased when they were called upon by the appellant Barka Soren for drinking liquor. Upon which, the deceased e
The credibility of an eye witness can be undermined by their conduct during the incident, affecting the sufficiency of evidence for conviction.
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.
A confession made under duress cannot be considered valid evidence for conviction, especially in the absence of corroborating eyewitness testimony.
A conviction cannot stand based solely on circumstantial evidence without direct eyewitness testimony, emphasizing the necessity for substantive proof.
Credible ocular evidence can uphold a conviction even if it contradicts medical evidence, provided it is consistent and trustworthy.
Convictions under Section 34 IPC require evidence of common intention and participation, both inadequately established in this case.
Insufficient evidence for conspiracy and murder conviction justifies bail for certain appellants.
Victim's testimony can support conviction in absence of medical evidence; principle of parity applies to co-accused.
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
