Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ
Nagendra Kumar Oraon, Son Of Basudeo Oraon – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
I.A. No. 11294 of 2024
The 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 14.06.2024 and order of sentence dated 19.06.2024 passed in Sessions Trial No. 190 of 2017 arising out of Nagar Untari P.S. Case No. 68 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 643 of 2017 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagar Untari District- Garhwa whereby and where under, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and a default sentence of R.I. for 1 year.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case in which conviction has been made not on the basis of testimony of the witnesses but by taking aid of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, since, incriminating materials have been recovered on the basis of the confession made by the appellant i.e. spade.
3. It has however been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that as per the FSL report, no blood stain has been found on the spade.
4. Learned counsel for the appel
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 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 based on circumstantial evidence requires corroborative proof; lack of such evidence warrants suspension of sentence.
A confession made under duress cannot be considered valid evidence for conviction, especially in the absence of corroborating eyewitness testimony.
Inconsistencies in witness testimony undermine conviction; a prima facie case supports suspension of sentence pending appeal.
A conviction cannot stand based solely on circumstantial evidence without direct eyewitness testimony, emphasizing the necessity for substantive proof.
Eye-witness testimony corroborated by forensic evidence can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and minor contradictions do not undermine the credibility of such evidence.
In murder convictions, post-conviction suspension of sentence is rare; courts assess evidence's prima facie durability and must have compelling justifications.
Credible ocular evidence can uphold a conviction even if it contradicts medical evidence, provided it is consistent and trustworthy.
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
