Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, ARUN KUMAR RAI
Rajendra Mahto, S/o Ramdhan Mahto – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
1. Heard Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.09.1997 passed by Sri Abhaya Shankar Prasad, Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in S.T. No. 187/1995 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable undersection 302 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Niwaran Mahto recorded on 07.02.1994, in which it has been stated that on 26.01.1994, the nephew of the informant, namely, Punit Kumar Mahto, aged 11 years, had come back home from school after the flag hoisting ceremony. At about 5:00PM, Rajendra Mahto (appellant) had come on a bicycle and had taken the nephew of the informant towards the pond. When the child did not return, even at 8:00PM, he and the others went in search of him. On 27.01.1994, an information about the missing child was also given to the Police. When Rajendra Mahto was asked, he had denied to have any knowledge about the whereabouts of the child. On persistent queries, Rajendra
Circumstantial evidence must be compelling and corroborated; mere last seen and body recovery insufficient for murder conviction without eyewitnesses or definitive proof.
Circumstantial evidence must be corroborated with direct proof; a case with hostile witnesses and lack of motive cannot sustain a conviction for murder.
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.
The last seen theory, as a facet of circumstantial evidence, requires corroborative evidence to establish guilt. The onus is on the accused to explain the circumstances under Section 106 of the Evide....
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on conclusive circumstantial evidence, and the testimony of a witness must be of sterling quality.
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
A conviction based solely on unreliable eyewitness testimony can be overturned, particularly when witness behavior raises doubts about the authenticity of their accounts.
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
