Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI
Bachandeo Kumar alias Bachan Singh, son of Jwala Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The present Appeal has been filed under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction dated 20.3.1997 and order of sentence dated 21.03.1997, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in Sessions Case No. 185 of 1995, whereby and whereunder, the learned court below has convicted the appellants under section 302/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo RI for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each under section 302/34 of the IPC and RI for seven years u/s 307/34 of IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. It is further ordered that half of the amount so realized from the convicts as fine, shall be given to the wife or dependants of the deceased.
Factual Matrix:
2. The prosecution case, in brief, on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Rajesh Singh (PW-1) dated 24.12.1994 is that accused Angad Singh and Bachan Singh are full brothers and accused Tunna Singh is their cousin. Accused Angad Singh was married with Ranju Devi @ Baby Devi, daughter of Satish Prasad Singh (PW-11) of the informant’s village Malaypur, District Jamui. Deceased Sunil Kumar Singh was chachera
The conviction based on the testimony of a sole injured eyewitness is valid if the testimony is credible and minor discrepancies do not overshadow the overall evidence supporting the charges of murde....
Conviction can be based on a sole eyewitness if credible, but significant inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence can lead to acquittal.
(1) Number of witnesses – There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on sole testimony of a single witness – But if there are doubts about testimony courts will insist on corroboration.(2) M....
Conviction under Section 302 cannot rest on sole eyewitness testimony riddled with contradictions, delay in naming accused, medical inconsistencies, and unnatural conduct; prosecution must prove guil....
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....
Conviction can be upheld based on the reliable testimony of a sole eyewitness, irrespective of the presence of corroborating evidence or independent witnesses, as long as the evidence is credible.
Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC unsustainable on uncorroborated, contradictory testimony of interested sole eyewitness; benefit of reasonable doubt mandates acquittal where prosecution fails to p....
The conviction can be sustained based on trustworthy testimony of a sole eyewitness, even without corroborating medical evidence, as long as the defendant's mental state is not legally established.
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
