Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, SANJAY PRASAD
Basant Kumar Mahto, S/o Pashupati Nath Mahto – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction and sentence of the appellant. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background and accusations against appellant. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. procedural context and evidence evaluation. (Para 5 , 10) |
| 4. arguments by appellants; lack of eyewitnesses. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. court's analysis of evidence and witnesses. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. requirements for circumstantial evidence. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 7. final verdict and release order. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :
1. Heard Mr. Mokhtar Khan, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 783 of 2018 and Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1036 of 2018, Mr. Gautam Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1149 of 2018, Mr. P.K. Appu, learned A.P.P., Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P., Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the informant.
2. All these appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 05-06-2018 (sentence passed on 11-06-2018) passed by Sri Surendra Nath Mishra, learned Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in S.T. No. 85/13 and S.T. No. 16/14 whereby and whereunder, the appellant Bas
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, a complete chain of circumstances must exist to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; absence of solid evidence results in exoneration.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain of circumstances leading to guilt; absence of concrete evidence raises doubt warranting acquittal.
The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
The court held that convictions must be supported by credible evidence, highlighting issues in witness identification and procedural failings that undermine the prosecution.
The judgment emphasizes the need for clear and unimpeachable evidence to establish guilt in criminal cases, highlighting the importance of witness reliability and consistent evidence.
The court overturned the convictions due to insufficient evidence, particularly doubts regarding witness identification and procedural irregularities in the prosecution's case.
When accused was last seen with the deceased and does not explain as to how the deceased died, adverse inference can be drawn against him u/s 106, Evidence Act. When prosecution establishes complete ....
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
