Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, ARUN KUMAR RAI
Suresh Pasi – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Md. Azeemuddin, learned A.P.P. assisted by Mr.Ranjan Kr. Singh, learned counsel for informant.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.04.1997 (sentence passed on 21.04.1997) passed by Shri R.P. Verma, learned Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Trial No. 119 of 1996, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and the appellant No. 1 has further been convicted u/s 324 INDIAN PENAL CODE and both the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the conviction u/s 302/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE whereas the appellant No. 1 has further been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for the conviction u/s 324 I.P.C.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Jaldhar Passi recorded on 02.12.1995 in which it has been alleged that on 20.12.1995, the father of the informant, namely, Bindi Pasi @ Binod Pasi after arranging the paddy was returning home at 10 p.m. and as soon as he reached near his house, Suresh P
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt in criminal proceedings.
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 judgment establishes that in criminal cases, particularly those involving serious charges like murder, the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and any significant doubts r....
The evidence presented failed to establish intent to kill, leading to conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC rather than murder under Section 302 IPC.
The conviction upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, despite the absence of independent witnesses, affirming the trial court's judgment.
The conviction cannot be sustained due to significant contradictions in eyewitness testimony, undermining the prosecution's burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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.
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
