Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Ananda Sen, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Vivek Kumar Gupta @ Vicky Gupta S/o Kanhaiya Lal Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. We have already heard, Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State.
2. This instant criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 22.11.2003 and sentence passed on 24.11.2003 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Palamau in S.T. Case No.135 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as depicted in the fardbeyan of informant namely Arun Prasad (P.W.5) is that informant is the eldest among three brothers, next brother Kanhaiya Lal aged about 44 years and youngest brother is Raj Kumar Gupta aged about 32 years. There is dispute regarding partition of family property between the parties. It is alleged that informant is running a General Merchant Shop in the name and style ‘Arun Kirana Bhandar’ situated at a distance of 100 yards from his house at Redma Ranchi Road. It is further alleged that on 07.05.2002 at about 07:00 am, informant went to open his shop
The court determined that the appellant's actions constituted culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II due to lack of intent, modifying the conviction from murder under Section 302.
Point of Law : Murder - Conviction set aside - Trial court has committed gross-error in believing the sole testimony of PW5 and conviction should not have been based on such type of testimony, which ....
Point of Law : Conviction on the basis of statements of two police officials alone is not sustainable.
The court upheld the conviction for murder but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, emphasizing the need for extreme caution in imposing capital punishment.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, including the place of occurrence and the examination of crucial ....
Under such backdrop the conviction of the appellant under section 27 of Arms Act is maintained.
The court acquitted the appellants due to insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies, emphasizing the need for credible proof in criminal convictions.
Mere failure of the prosecution in producing reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory relating to the weapon of offence and the blood-stained earth and clothes would not derogate from the veracit....
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
