Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Rai, JJ
Mangta @ Dokal Tubid S/o Ramchandra Tubid – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
1. Heard Mr. Naveen Kr. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 07.04.1998 (sentence passed on 15.04.1998) passed by Shri Ashim Kumar Dutta, learned 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in S.T. No. 181 of 1996, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 302/201/34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to R.I. for life for the conviction u/s 302/34 of the IPC and imprisonment for three years u/s 201 of the IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Sura Tubid recorded on 01.03.1996, in which, it has been stated that on 29.02.1996 there was a Maghe festival being celebrated in the village and on the said occasion Diku Sundi and Chhota Sundi had come to the house of Mangta @ Dokal @ Tubid (appellant). The daughter of the informant namely Somi Tubid @ Kundi was seen with the said three persons enjoying herself. When at around 5:00-6:00 P.M. Mangta had come to the house of the in
The court held that a retracted confession cannot solely establish guilt without independent corroboration, emphasizing the necessity for robust evidence in criminal convictions.
Confessions made voluntarily and without pressure under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. are admissible as evidence.
Confessional statement recorded without informing to accused as to why he desires to confess and he would not be remanded to police Lock-up even if, he does not confess guilt, cannot be relied on.
The conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires an unbroken chain of events leading to the sole conclusion of guilt, with no room for reasonable doubt.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC, emphasizing that the absence of premeditation and the nature of the incident fell within Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.
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
