Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Pradeep Kumar Son of Rajendra Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. It is to be mentioned at the very outset that out of six appellants, the appellant No.1 Rajendra Prasad @ Sao and appellant No.3 Dadan Prasad have been died during the pendency of this appeal and their appeal has been abated in vide order dated 13th February 2025.
2. A separate case was filed on behalf of appellant Rajendra Prasad (In Criminal Appeal (SJ) 252 of 2007) who has also been died and the appeal filed on behalf of him also stands abated vide order dated 22.11.2019.
3. Heard Mr. K.K. Mishra learned counsel for alive appellants as well as Mrs. Vandana Bharti learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
4. Present appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant dated 18.01.2006 and 19.01.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Latehar in Sessions Case No. 62 of 2003 arising out of Latehar P.S. Case No. 47 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 307 /34, 452/34 and 380/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 05 years along with fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence under Section 307 /3
Insufficient evidence and lack of corroboration in testimony led to the reversal of conviction for serious offences under the Indian Penal Code.
The court found that the evidence did not establish the intent required for serious charges under IPC Sections 307 and 450, modifying convictions to lesser offences based on the nature of injuries su....
Conviction under attempted murder altered to simpler assault due to lack of corroborative evidence and reliance on informant's testimony, allowing for probation under the law.
The court found insufficient evidence to support convictions for rape and theft, while upholding lesser charges of assault and indecent assault based on the victim's testimony.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt goes in favor of the accused when the evidence is inconsistent and unreliable.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of corroborative evidence and the need for caution in evaluating the testimony of an inimical witness. It also highlights the impact of non-examination of the I....
Conviction under Section 306 I.P.C. cannot be treated as a minor offence in relation to Section 302 I.P.C.; prosecution failed to prove cause of death or allegations of cruelty.
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
