Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, RAJESH KUMAR, JJ.
Latif Nadaf, son of Late Badde Nadaf and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar - Opp. Party
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 3 of 1997(DB)
Decided On : 01-08-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. abatement of appeals due to death of appellants. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. facts establishing appellant's convictions and the necessitated appeal. (Para 4) |
| 3. prosecution case initiation details, defining the charges framed. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. presentation of evidence and testimonies of witnesses during trial. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. arguments presented in defense against the conviction. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. analysis of witness testimonies and their discrepancies. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 7. evaluation of prosecution evidence against the appellants. (Para 54 , 55) |
| 8. court's analysis on evidence credibility and doubt. (Para 60 , 75) |
| 9. legal principles concerning contradictions in testimonies and their effects. (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68) |
| 10. prosecutorial burden of proof and benefit of doubt principles. (Para 70 , 71 , 72 , 73) |
| 11. final judgment outcome leading to acquittal. (Para 82 , 83 , 84) |
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to mention herein that out of the ten convicts, as per the impugned judgment, eight appellants preferred Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 3 of 1997 whereas two appellants, namely, Kedar Rai and Sk. Ainudi preferred Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 40 of 1997. Both the appeals were tagged together since they arise out of the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
2. It appears from order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that a report was submitted by the Officer-in-Charge, Mahagama Police Station dated 24.02.2019 regarding the status of the appellants in the present appeal [Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 3 of 1997] and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 40 of 1997, which was tagged together. As per report supported by the certificates of the Mukhiya the appellant no. 1 Chhaku Nadaf, son of late Astuli Nadaf, appellant no. 5 Pagal Ray, son of late Kishan Rai, appellant no. 6 Basant Sikdar, son of late Sayu @ Sanu Sikdar and appellant no. 7 Sanu Sikdar, son of late Bishu Sikdar so far Cr. Appeal No. 3/1997 (DB) is concerned have died during pendency of the appeal. No leave has been sought by any of the legal heirs/close relatives of the deceased appellants in terms of section 394 of the Cr. PC., as such, Cr. Appeal No. 3/1997 (DB) abates as against these appellants. However, it survives against the remaining four appellants i.e. appellant no. 2 Latif Nadaf, appellant no. 3 Ibrahim Nadaf, appellant no. 4 Pandu Ray and appellant no. 8 Lakhindar Rai.
3. The report further reveals that appellant no. 1 Kedar Rai, son of late Dhankush Rai and appellant no. 2 Sk. Ainudi Rai, son of late Sk. Aktar in Cr. Appeal No. 40/1997 (DB) have died during pendency of this appeal. No leave has been sought by any of the legal heirs/close relatives of the deceased appellants in terms of section 394 of the Cr. PC. As such, Cr. Appeal No. 40/1997 (DB) stands abated.
4. For ready reference, order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the Co-ordinate Division Bench is quoted as under:
“A report has been submitted by the Officer-in-Charge, Mahagama Police Station dated 24.02.2019 regarding the status of the appellants in both the appeals, whether they are dead or alive. Enclosed to his report are certificates of the Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat-Lahathi and Gram Panchayat-Ghat Gamhariya, District Godda dated 23.02.2019 describing the status of the appellants in the respective appeals. Perusal of the report reveals that the appellant no. 1 Chhaku Nadaf, son of late Astuli Nadaf, appellant no. 5 Pagal Ray, son of late Kishan Rai, appellant no. 6 Basant Sikdar, son of late Sayu @ Sanu Sikdar and appellant no. 7 Sanu Sikdar, son of late Bishu Sikdar in Cr. Appeal No. 3/1997 (DB) have died during pendency of the appeal. No leave has been sought by any legal heir / close relative of the deceased appellants in terms of section 394 of the Cr. PC. As such, Cr. Appeal No. 3/1997 (DB) abates as against these appellants. However, it survives agains
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; significant discrepancies and contradictions in witness testimonies preclude a conviction.
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....
The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and significant discrepancies in eyewitness accounts can undermine the reliability of their testimonies.
Murder – Exaggerated devotion to rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law.
A conviction cannot stand when there are significant contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, raising doubts about the prosecution's case.
Conviction for mass murder under 302/149 IPC set aside due to unreliable, contradictory ocular evidence from related witnesses; doubtful night identification, improbable presence/story; benefit of do....
When evidence of eye-witnesses are not trust worthy to believe, then motive place an important role to prove guilt of accused.
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
