Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Ledo Yadav, Son of Late Budhan Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. We have already heard Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State.
2. It is to be mentioned at the very outset that appellant No.2 Mutari Devi Wife of Ledo Yadav died during the pendency of this appeal, hence, her appeal has been abated vide order dated 11.08.2025. This appeal is heard on behalf of the aforesaid sole alive appellant.
3. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.03.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Chatra in S.T. No.199 of 2001, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offences under Sections 302 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and R.I. for seven years respectively for the aforesaid offences. Both sentences are directed to run concurrently.
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the informant's (P.W.9) daughter Sabo Devi was married with Prabhu Yadav about 12 to 13 years back. It is alleged that on 06.10.1999, the informant's daughter was administered poison at her
A conviction under the IPC cannot be upheld without concrete evidence linking the appellant to the crime, and a judgment must not rely on mere suspicion.
Conviction under Section 306 I.P.C. cannot be treated as a minor offence in relation to Section 302 I.P.C.; prosecution failed to prove cause of death or allegations of cruelty.
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on eyewitness testimony and established motive, dismissing intoxication as a defense.
The conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld due to compelling circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the murder, ruling that suspicion alone is insufficient without definitive proof of ....
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 circumstantial evidence requires proof of an unbroken link of evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not merely suspicion.
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence, establishing the accused's guilt through a combination of testimonies, confessional statements, and lack of viable alterna....
A negative viscera report does not preclude liability for poisoning if other evidence establishes the accused's guilt.
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
