Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Ananda Sen, Subhash Chand
Sunder Pahan, son of Late Samu Pahan – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
Subhash Chand, J.
The instant Criminal Appeal is directed against the Judgment of Conviction dated 08.05.2018 and Order of Sentence dated 11.05.2018 passed by the District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in S.T. Case No. 766 of 2012, arising out of Khunti P.S. Case No. 57 of 2012 whereby the accused-Sunder Pahan was convicted for the offence under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of fine appellant/convict has to further undergo S.I. for six months under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case leading to this Cr. Appeal are that the fardbayan of the informant Manki Pahan was recorded in which the allegations are made that on 27.05.2012 at 04 O’clock she was at her house and her husband Suku Pahan was manufacturing wooden window at the door of the house. At the same time, the son of her brother-in-law (Bhainsur) Sunder Pahan came and assaulted with Tangi on the head of her husband from the backside of Tangi. Thereafter he went and again came after some time and gave again the blow with the Tangi to her husband with in
The conviction can be sustained based on trustworthy testimony of a sole eyewitness, even without corroborating medical evidence, as long as the defendant's mental state is not legally established.
The conviction based on the testimony of a sole injured eyewitness is valid if the testimony is credible and minor discrepancies do not overshadow the overall evidence supporting the charges of murde....
The testimony of a sole eyewitness, even if related to the victim, can be sufficient for conviction if credible and corroborated by medical evidence.
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....
Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC unsustainable on uncorroborated, contradictory testimony of interested sole eyewitness; benefit of reasonable doubt mandates acquittal where prosecution fails to p....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant's assault with a deadly weapon, causing grievous injuries to the victim, demonstrated the intention and knowledge to commit murd....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish the charge for the commission of an offense beyond all reasonable doubt, emphasizing the importance of credible evi....
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
