Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, RAJESH KUMAR
Aklu Mahto – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R.Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned A.P.P.
2. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.07.2009 (sentence passed on 18.07.2009) by Shri Rabindra Nath Tiwari, Learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court, Khunti in Sessions Trial No.449 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 /34 of the I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
3. The Fardbeyan of Bhola Mahto was recorded on 18.09.1998 at 11.30 P.M in which it has been stated that on the same day at 3.30 P.M. he had sent his son to the market and he was going to cut grass in his field. When he had heard a commotion coming from the house of Aklu Mahto (appellant) the informant went towards the courtyard of Aklu Mahto and he had seen Aklu Mahto close the door. Along with the informant was Ghumesh Mahto. When he asked Aklu Mahto about the happenings, he disclosed that there was a black thief inside. The informant thereafter went to cut grass. The Police came at night and when the doo
Circumstantial evidence must be corroborated with direct proof; a case with hostile witnesses and lack of motive cannot sustain a conviction for murder.
Circumstantial evidence must be compelling and corroborated; mere last seen and body recovery insufficient for murder conviction without eyewitnesses or definitive proof.
The last seen theory, as a facet of circumstantial evidence, requires corroborative evidence to establish guilt. The onus is on the accused to explain the circumstances under Section 106 of the Evide....
The court held that convictions must be supported by credible evidence, highlighting issues in witness identification and procedural failings that undermine the prosecution.
The judgment emphasizes the need for clear and unimpeachable evidence to establish guilt in criminal cases, highlighting the importance of witness reliability and consistent evidence.
The court overturned the convictions due to insufficient evidence, particularly doubts regarding witness identification and procedural irregularities in the prosecution's case.
The main legal point established is that the prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the lack of concrete evidence can lead to the setting aside of a conviction.
Conviction under Section 302 upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony, despite the informant being declared hostile; demonstrates the reliability of child witnesses in criminal proceedings.
A conviction based solely on unreliable eyewitness testimony can be overturned, particularly when witness behavior raises doubts about the authenticity of their accounts.
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
