Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ
Khedan Rawani – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R. Mukhopadhyay, J.
1. Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Ms. Amiya Anusha, learned Amicus and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Special P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.02.1997 passed by Shri P.N. Yadav, learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 02/1996 whereby and whereunder the appellant no. 1 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. while the rest of the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 /34 I.P.C. and all the appellants have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life.
3. The Fardbayan of Ishwarmani Rawani was recorded on 4.7.1995 in which it has been stated that on the same day at 9.30 a.m. the accused persons started abusing the inmates of the house of the informant and when the father of the informant namely Arjun Rawani returned home after performing puja in the temple the accused persons became silent. The informant thereafter went to take bath in a nearby tank and when he was coming back, he saw the accused persons and the inmates of his family engaged in a quarrel at which the informant forbade his family members not t
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 court affirmed that the appellants' actions constituted unprovoked assault resulting in death, negating their claim of private defense, supported by consistent eyewitness accounts.
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
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 prosecution failed to establish a credible case of murder beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
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 prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to unreliable witness testimonies and insufficient circumstantial evidence.
Conviction cannot stand when significant doubts arise due to contradictory testimonies and acquittal of co-accused on similar evidence, emphasizing the principle of parity in criminal proceedings.
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
