Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sri Ananda Sen, Sri Gautam Kumar Choudhary, JJ
Arun Mahto, S/o Late Badho Mahto – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ananda Sen, J.
The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 28.05.2002 and order of sentence dated 29.05.2002 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No.260 of 1994, whereby the appellant No.1 has been convicted under Sections 302/109 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant No.2 has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and both have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
2. Challenging the judgment, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that no independent witness has been examined in this case and the witness who are examined are highly interested witness and related to the deceased. He further submitted that as it was dark at the time of occurrence, the witnesses could have not identified the appellants. The place of occurrence has also not been proved by the prosecution. He further submitted that no plausible explanation was given regarding delay in lodging the F.I.R. and sending the same to the Court. On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellants prays for acquittal.
3. Learned counsel for the State submit
The court distinguished between abetment and direct involvement in murder, emphasizing the reliability of injured witnesses' testimonies over others.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish the charge for the commission of an offense beyond all reasonable doubt, emphasizing the importance of credible evi....
The testimonies of injured eye witnesses and the recovery of the weapon of offence hold special evidentiary status and can be relied upon to establish guilt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 to section 300 of the Indian Penal Code in cases of sudden fights, and the need for caution in evaluating the testim....
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused are entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt; the court found the injured witnesses' evidence credible.
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; if reasonable doubt exists, the accused is entitled to acquittal.
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
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
