Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Arun Kumar Rai
Hamid Momin son of late Jahan Momin – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar(now Jharkhand) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Arun Kumar Rai, J
1. The present appeal has been filed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 19.01.1998 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 422 of 1996 whereby both the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 /34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.
2. The case of prosecution is based upon the fardbeyan of one Nur Islam Momin S/o late Habib Momin resident of Goradih Tola Bahmani P.S. Silli District Ranchi. This fardbeyan has been recorded on 28.10.1995 at 12:30 P.M at the house of the informant who stated therein that yesterday i.e. on 27.10.1995 at about 2:00 P.M. he went to Goradih market and when he was returning then he got information that his mother was given beatings, then by running he reached the home and saw his mother Mehjin Bibi was lying on the ground in unconscious condition in the bari (garden) of karim Momin. Informant further stated that his nani Gudni Bibi had also told him that when his mother was coming from river, after taking bath then villager Hamid Momin and his wife Sahnaj Bibi laid her on the ground and with intent to ki
The prosecution must establish the credibility of evidence and corroborate testimonies with medical evidence; failure to do so results in reasonable doubt and reversal of conviction.
A conviction cannot stand when there are significant contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, raising doubts about the prosecution's case.
Conviction under Section 302 cannot rest on sole eyewitness testimony riddled with contradictions, delay in naming accused, medical inconsistencies, and unnatural conduct; prosecution must prove guil....
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of independent witnesses can lead to quashing of conviction.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistent eyewitness accounts can lead to acquittal.
The conviction based on the testimony of a sole injured eyewitness is valid if the testimony is credible and minor discrepancies do not overshadow the overall evidence supporting the charges of murde....
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
