Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, ARUN KUMAR RAI
Mukund Mandal, S/o Late BeJu Mandal – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
1. Heard Mr. Amit Kr. Das, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.11.1997 passed by Sri Hari Shankar Prasad, learned Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 307 of 1996, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 302/201/34 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence u/s 302/34 of the and R.I. for 04 years for the offence u/s 201 of the . Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Alosi Devi recorded on 08.10.1995, in which, it has been stated that the daughter of the informant namely, Budhni Devi was married to Shankar Mandal and she remained at her matrimonial house for one and a half months after which the father of Budhni Devi brought her to his home. The daughter of the informant did not want to go back to her matrimonial house. It has been stated that Shankar Mandal had come to take Budhni Devi on the occasion of Charghara Mela and on Thursday she
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and mere suspicion cannot replace substantive proof.
The burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act and the use of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt were central legal principles in the judgment.
Conviction for murder upheld based on consistent eyewitness accounts despite concerns about the independence of witnesses, highlighting the relevance of cohesive testimonies over minor contradictions....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of corroborated evidence in cases involving dowry demands and assault, as well as the requirement to prove the deceased's death with....
The standard of proof for convicting a person of murder requires complete and conclusive evidence, and the prosecution must establish that the deceased 'must have' been killed by the accused.
(1) Murder – Life sentence – Law does not permit Courts to punish accused on the basis of suspicion alone – Greater the felony stricter the degree of proof.(2) Delay in lodging F.I.R. corrodes credib....
The conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld due to compelling circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the murder, ruling that suspicion alone is insufficient without definitive proof of ....
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
