Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Bahura Mahto, Son of Somra Mahto – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned Additional P.P.
2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19/28.04.2003 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. II), Civil Court, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 331 of 1993, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal, as per fardbeyan of Jitiya Singh (P.W.-5) is that on 16.05.1993 at about 10:00 A.M. informant had gone to take bath in a Dandi (small well) situated in the field of Likhan Singh, where he saw Tercha Mahato along with his two sons namely Gandur Mahato (P.W.-7), aged about 10 years and Birbal Mahato, aged about 3 years, who were also present for taking bath. The informant saw that Bahura Mahato after taking bath from the Dandi was standing nearby. It is further alleged that informant was washing his cloths on stone
Conviction under Section 302 upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony, despite the informant being declared hostile; demonstrates the reliability of child witnesses in criminal proceedings.
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
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 ....
Conviction under IPC 302/34 upheld on reliable sole eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence and witnesses, despite minor discrepancies and non-examination of investigating officer/docto....
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on reliable eyewitness testimony and rejected the alibi defence due to lack of corroborative evidence.
The main legal point established is that the prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the lack of concrete evidence can lead to the setting aside of a conviction.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; significant discrepancies in evidence warranted the appellant's acquittal.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on related witnesses without corroboration is insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any significant doubt arising from inconsistencies in evidence must benefit the accused.
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
