IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, ARUN KUMAR RAI
Roop Narayan Mahto @ Kaila Mahto (Since Deceased) – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Mr. Vishnupad Singh, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl. P.P. for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.05.1997 (sentence passed on 12.05.1997) passed by Shri Swaroop Lal, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Trial No. 39 of 1995/07 of 1996, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302/120B of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Pawani Devi recorded on 30.091995, in which, it has been stated that on 29.09.1995, the informant along with her husband Lalit Mahto had gone to the market in Gandhigram to purchase some essential articles. They were met by Budhu Mahto and Sristidhar Mahto in the market and at their insistence the informant was sent home by her husband with the purchased articles with an assurance by her husband that he would have his meals once he returns. The informant went home and when her husband did not return even in the next morning, she asked Budhu Mahto about the w
A conviction under IPC requires reliable evidence; mere last seen theory without corroboration cannot sustain a guilty verdict.
The court ruled that reliance on a solitary eyewitness was misplaced due to inconsistencies, leading to the conclusion that the conviction was not supported by reliable evidence.
A single reliable eyewitness can sustain a conviction, emphasizing the quality of evidence over quantity, even if the accused was not named in the F.I.R.
The court held that oral dying declarations require corroboration to be considered substantive evidence, especially when the identity of the accused is in doubt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and contradictions and doubts in the evidence can lead to the f....
The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, rendering the conviction unsustainable despite evidence of homicidal death.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; circumstantial evidence alone, without corroboration, is insufficient for conviction.
The court overturned the convictions due to insufficient evidence, particularly doubts regarding witness identification and procedural irregularities in the prosecution's case.
The credibility of eyewitness testimonies, especially from witnesses with a relationship to the deceased, and the appreciation of evidence considering the socio-economic and educational background of....
The conviction for murder based solely on a solitary eyewitness's testimony was overturned due to contradictions and lack of corroboration from other witnesses.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.