Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Amit Mukhi, son of Ashok Mukhi – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. defense argues false implication. (Para 9) |
| 3. prosecution defends the conviction. (Para 10) |
| 4. conflict of evidence analyzed. (Para 16) |
| 5. judgment set aside on appeal. (Para 17) |
| 6. appellant discharged from liability. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. We have already heard the arguments of Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel for the sole appellant and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State assisted by Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the informant.
2. It is to be mentioned at the very outset that the present appeal was filed by three accused persons, out of them, appellant No.1, Ashok Mukhi and appellant No.3, Sumit Mukhi have died and their appeal has been abated vide order dated 13.08.2025. This appeal is now heard on behalf of the sole surviving appellant, namely, Amit Mukhi.
3. The instant criminal appeal is preferred against the order dated 22.03.2003 passed by learned 5th, Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in S.T. Case No.89 of 2001, whereby and whereunder the present appellant has been held guilty for the offence under sections 302 read with section 34 of IPC and senten
A conviction based on hearsay evidence and failure to prove direct involvement leads to the need for definitive evidence beyond doubt. Court must scrutinize witness credibility and ensure no substant....
Once there is no eye-witness of incident prosecution will have to establish a motive for commission of crime.
The need for circumstances to be fully established and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, and the requirement for corroboration of an oral dying declaration by other ind....
Evidence must be consistent and reliable to uphold a conviction; inherent improbabilities can lead to a verdict of not guilty.
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on eyewitness testimony and established motive, dismissing intoxication as a defense.
A conviction for murder requires reliable and corroborated evidence, particularly when based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness; contradictions and lack of corroboration can lead to the reversal o....
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
