Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Shambhu Kumar Pandey, son of Onkar Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Mr. Venkateshwar Gopal, learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Vikash Kishore Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwary, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred by above named appellants for setting aside impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 05th October, 2002 and 7th October, 2002 respectively passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Court-II, Giridih in S.T. No.297 of 2000, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under sections 392, 394 read with section 397 of Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years for each offence, which are directed to run concurrently.
3. The appellants were charged for commission of offences under sections 394, 397 and 411 of Indian Penal Code and they have been acquitted for the charge under section 411 of IPC .
FACTUAL MATRIX:-
4. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 23.05.2000 at about 13:00 hours, four miscreants entered into Allahabad Bank, Giridih Branch with revolvers and one of them opened fire, which hit the roof of the offi
Conviction upheld for bank robbery based on credible witness testimonies; sentence modified to imprisonment already served.
No one can be convicted without adequate incriminatory evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, especially regarding the involvement of each accused....
Recovery of the weapon of offence is not a sine qua non for convicting an accused. Albeit under Sections 302/34 IPC, the Court in this case also opined that it was not possible to reject the ocular e....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the accused to meet the essential ingredients of Section 397 of the IPC, and the distinction between 'uses' as used in Section ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a consistent and credible prosecution case, including evidence of motive or enmity, to establish guilt beyond reasonable dou....
A conviction cannot be sustained on mere suspicion; evidence must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Failure of prosecution to prove charge beyond reasonable doubt due to inordinate delay in FIR and weak identification evidence.
The absence of credible evidence and procedural irregularities create reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal of the accused 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
