Back
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, ARUN KUMAR RAI
Karu Paswan, S/o. Ram Shankar Paswan – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgment they are being disposed of by this common order.
3. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.06.1997 (sentence passed on 20.06.1997) passed by Shri Sudarshan Upadhyay, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra in Sessions Trial No. 15/1996, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 of the IPC and have been sentenced to R.I. for life.
4. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Pano Devi recorded on 17.02.1995 in front of the house of the informant, in which, it has been stated that around 10:00 A.M. she was cooking food in her house when Kauleshwar Paswan with a knife came and wanted to know about the whereabouts of the mother-in-law of the informant. In the meantime, Kurhan Paswan and Karu Paswan had also come. When the informant came out of her house she found her husband making a ploughing instrument near the house of her mother-in-law. The accused
Conviction for murder upheld based on consistent eyewitness accounts despite concerns about the independence of witnesses, highlighting the relevance of cohesive testimonies over minor contradictions....
The court emphasized the necessity for corroborative evidence in sustaining a criminal conviction, highlighting the unreliability of witness statements and inconsistencies therein.
The conviction upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, despite the absence of independent witnesses, affirming the trial court's judgment.
The court overturned the convictions due to insufficient evidence, particularly doubts regarding witness identification and procedural irregularities in the prosecution's case.
The court held that convictions must be supported by credible evidence, highlighting issues in witness identification and procedural failings that undermine the prosecution.
The court upheld a conviction for murder based on eyewitness testimonies, affirming that the familiarity of rural witnesses with the accused overcame visibility doubts.
The necessity of corroborative evidence in cases of murder and the interpretation of common object under Section 149 IPC, emphasizing that mere presence at the scene does not equate to participation ....
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
