Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Pasupati Pandey @ Buchu Pandey, Son of Madan Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. basis of appeal and factual matrix presented. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. appellants' arguments on false implication. (Para 5) |
| 3. prosecution's rebuttal of appellants' claims. (Para 6) |
| 4. point of law for consideration outlined. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. witness testimonies and evidential evaluation. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. court's analysis of evidence leading to errors. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. final decision and discharge of appellants. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant criminal appeal is preferred challenging the conviction and sentence dated 03.06.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-1, Chatra in Sessions Trial No. 328 of 1994, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Sections 302, 201/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for three years respectively. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as per fardbeyan of one Ran Bijay Singh dated 21.01.1991 at about 8:30 hours is that on last Thur
Conviction requires credible evidence; mere suspicion and contradictions among witnesses cannot sustain a guilty verdict.
The court emphasized that conviction requires reliable, corroborative evidence, and inconsistencies in witness testimony led to the reversal of the conviction.
Conviction based solely on suspicion is insufficient; legal proof is required to establish guilt in criminal cases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and contradictions and doubts in the evidence can lead to the f....
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be reliable and corroborated; mere reliance on the last seen theory is insufficient for conviction.
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....
Conviction requires credible evidence beyond reasonable doubt; untrustworthy eyewitness testimony cannot sustain a murder conviction.
Conviction requires reliable evidence; inconsistent eyewitness testimony undermines the case, leading to acquittal.
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
