Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN, GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Sonu Lal Murmu S/o Kala Murmu – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and factual background (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented by parties (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court’s analysis and reasoning (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.
1. Since both the appeals arise out of judgment of conviction and sentence under Sections 302 /34 and 148 of the IPC passed in Sessions Trial No. 261 of 2001 / 107 of 2002, they have been heard together and will be disposed of by the common judgment.
2. Informant is the brother of the deceased. As per the FIR, on 30.03.1987, the informant-Ludu Baski had gone to attend the marriage ceremony in the house of his co-villager- Jitan. At around 10:00 p.m. on hulla, he came out of the house and rushed towards his house. He saw that, (i) Sunu Lala Murmu (ii) Sitaram Murmu (iii) Guna Murmu (iv) Sinan Murmu (v) Kakam Murmu (vi) Surun Murmu (vii) Dabu Murmu (viii) Dhari Murmu (ix) Shiv Lal Murmu (x) Sona Murmu (xi) Kamal Murmu were indiscriminately assaulting Pithu Baski with lathi and iron rod. On hulla, when the villagers started gathering there, the accused persons fled away. It is claimed that the accused persons were identified in the light
The court confirmed that eyewitness testimonies, despite procedural lapses in FIR registration, sufficiently proved the common intention of the accused in a joint assault leading to conviction under ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of familial relationship, lack of criminal antecedents, and the prolonged duration of the criminal prosecution in deciding the ap....
The conviction based on inconsistent eye-witness testimony was overturned, highlighting the necessity for credible evidence in criminal cases.
The prosecution's failure to explain injuries to the accused and the unexplained delay in FIR registration raised doubts that led to the allowance of the appeal.
The court emphasized the prosecution's burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting inconsistencies and the absence of independent corroboration in witness testimonies.
The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to unreliable witness testimonies and insufficient circumstantial 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
