Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ
Birsa Tirkey @ Bhouta, Son Of Jagna Tirkey – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
I.A. No.13483 of 2024
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430(1) of the BNSS for suspension of sentence dated 16.02.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in connection with Session Trial No.117 of 2022 arising out of Manoharpur P.S. Case No.31 of 2021 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for one year.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is a case where there is no evidence said to be available to substantiate the prosecution version, save and except the recovery of the ‘sabbal’ on the confession of the appellant, a hard blunt substance which has sharp edge in its bottom.
3. It has been contended that although the said ‘sabbal’ has been recovered and as would be evident from the seizure list, the said ‘sabbal’ was having blood stain but when the ‘sabbal’ was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, the blood traces were not found on the sabbal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid ground, has subm
The prosecution must establish charges beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of a weapon without corroborating evidence is insufficient for conviction.
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.
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 based on circumstantial evidence requires corroborative proof; lack of such evidence warrants suspension of sentence.
Inconsistencies in witness testimony undermine conviction; a prima facie case supports suspension of sentence pending appeal.
The victim's admission of consent complicates the prosecution's case under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC, warranting suspension of the appellant's sentence during appeal.
A confession made under duress cannot be considered valid evidence for conviction, especially in the absence of corroborating eyewitness testimony.
The theory of last seen together is insufficient for conviction without corroborative evidence and motive, warranting suspension of sentence.
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
