Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY PRASAD
Annu Verma @ Anurudha Verma, son of Shri Rajendra Prasad Sah – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction dated 29.11.2005 and sentence dated 01.12.2005 passed by Shri Arun Kumar, the learned Special Judge-cum-1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Special Case No. 14/01/12/02, by which the Appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for Seven years.
The Appellant is also convicted for the offence under Section 341 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month.
The Appellant is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) payable to the injured Informant, without mentioning the relevant Section.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Informant had lodged this F.I.R. alleging that on
21.04.1998, at 12.00 noon, while he was returning to his house by the main road of the market and when he reached near Sony Watch shop of the accused- Appellant, namely Annu Verma, the accused called him to the shop and abused him by condemning that he was doing Rangdari and when the Informant objected, the accused caught his collar and began to assault him with fists. When the informant protested, then
Conviction under attempted murder altered to simpler assault due to lack of corroborative evidence and reliance on informant's testimony, allowing for probation under the law.
Non-examination of the Investigating Officer and critical medical witnesses raises doubts about the prosecution's case, necessitating acquittal due to insufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Insufficient evidence and lack of corroboration in testimony led to the reversal of conviction for serious offences under the Indian Penal Code.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of corroborative evidence and the need for caution in evaluating the testimony of an inimical witness. It also highlights the impact of non-examination of the I....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt goes in favor of the accused when the evidence is inconsistent and unreliable.
Prosecution must provide reliable evidence, including original injury reports, to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of corroborating evidence may lead to acquittal.
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
