Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Raju Lakra, Son of Sri Bishu Lakra – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. At the very outset, it is to be mentioned that three accused persons have been convicted in this case, out of whom, appellant no. 1 Koncha Oraon has died during pendency of this appeal and appeal on his behalf has been abated vide order dated 19.08.2025. So far convict Mannu Kachap, who has preferred another appeal i.e. Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1179 of 2003 is concerned, his appeal has been abated vide order dated 06.10.2025 as he has also died during pendency of appeal.
2. Heard Mrs. Supriya Dayal, learned counsel for the sole surviving appellant as well as Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.
3. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 08.07.2003 and order of sentence dated 09.07.2003 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 498 of 1995, whereby and whereunder, the present appellant along with two others have been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 & 201/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life each for the offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for 5 y
The court emphasized that conviction requires reliable, corroborative evidence, and inconsistencies in witness testimony led to the reversal of the conviction.
Conviction requires credible evidence; mere suspicion and contradictions among witnesses cannot sustain a guilty verdict.
Murder conviction on circumstantial evidence requires complete unbroken chain excluding innocence; absent proof of foundational facts like last seen together and court direction, appellants entitled ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive and incriminating evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence, as well as the need to establish a clear mo....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
The court emphasized that conviction requires definitive evidence beyond reasonable doubt, and where inconsistencies exist, the accused must be afforded the benefit of doubt.
The prosecution must prove homicidal death beyond reasonable doubt; circumstantial evidence alone, including last seen theory, is insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on credible evidence, including witness testimony and medical findings, even absent direct physical evidence like weapon recovery.
Conviction based solely on suspicion is insufficient; legal proof is required to establish guilt in criminal cases.
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
