Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ
Nirmal Kido S/o Late Lajrus Kido – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
I.A. No. 11963 of 2024
The aforesaid instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430(1) of the BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence of the appellant in connection with the judgment of conviction dated 18.09.2024 and order of sentence dated 20.09.2024 passed in Sessions Trial No. 160 of 2022 arising out of Pakartanr P.S. Case No. 18 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 308 of 2022 by the learned Sessions Judge, Simdega whereby and where under, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and a default sentence of R.I. for 6 months under Section 302 I.P.C and R.I. for 7 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and a default sentence of R.I. for 3 months under Section 201 I.P.C.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where there is no eye witness.
3. It has also been submitted that the appellant has been convicted only on the basis of testimony of P.W.1-informant, who has deposed that on the basis of confession made by the appellant the dead body was recovered from nearby bush. However, P.W.1 at para 2 o
A confession made under duress cannot be considered valid evidence for conviction, especially in the absence of corroborating eyewitness testimony.
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 credibility of an eye witness can be undermined by their conduct during the incident, affecting the sufficiency of evidence for conviction.
Suspension of sentence is justified when the appeal process is delayed significantly and key witness credibility is in question.
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.
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 prosecution must establish charges beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of a weapon without corroborating evidence is insufficient 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.
A conviction cannot stand based solely on circumstantial evidence without direct eyewitness testimony, emphasizing the necessity for substantive proof.
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
