Back
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT, RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, DEEPAK ROSHAN
Dhanu Bhuiyan @ Dhinu Bhuiyan, S/o. Bodha Bhuiyan – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
1. Heard Mrs. Snehlika Bhagat, learned amicus curiae for the appellant(s) and learned A.P.P.
2. Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgement, they are being disposed of by this common order.
3. Both these appeals are directed against the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 27-03-2003 (sentence passed on 29-03-2003) passed by Sri Ravindra Prasad Ravi, learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in S.T. No. 20/2001 whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
4. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Shatrughan Prasad Dangi recorded on 25-08-2000 in which it has been stated that he had gone to Hazaribag for the treatment of his wife Usha Devi and after getting her treated, he had reached Chauparan by Rahul Bus at 8:30PM. It has been stated that the informant asked his wife to stay near Chatra More and in the meantime, he had gone to return the dues of Rs. 4,500/- to Laxmi Sao. Since the shop of Laxmi Sao was closed, the informant had returned back to Chatra More and started going on fo
Circumstantial evidence and confessions without corroboration cannot sustain a murder conviction due to the necessity of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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....
Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory requires corroboration, especially when relationships indicate possible alibi or innocence.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and mere suspicion cannot replace substantive proof.
Circumstantial evidence must be strong and corroborative to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere confession under duress is insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to unreliable witness testimonies and insufficient circumstantial evidence.
The court overturned the convictions due to insufficient evidence, particularly doubts regarding witness identification and procedural irregularities in the prosecution's case.
The court held that convictions must be supported by credible evidence, highlighting issues in witness identification and procedural failings that undermine the prosecution.
The court emphasized the necessity for corroborative evidence in sustaining a criminal conviction, highlighting the unreliability of witness statements and inconsistencies therein.
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
