Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI
Kalim Mian, S/o. Ibrahim Mian – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.04.1997, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No.188 of 1994/ 5 of 1995, by which the appellant has been convicted under section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The appellant has been further convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and for that he has been sentenced to undergo RI for three years. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
2. Before, proceeding with the case, it is pertinent to note that by the impugned judgment, two accused persons namely Ibrahim Mian and Kalim Mian (appellant herein) were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Accused Ibrahim Mian had filed Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 174 of 1997(P), which was abated by order dated 21.12.2023 of this Court, as appellant Ibrahim Mian had died during pendency of the said appeal.
Prosecution Case:
3. This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, deems it fit and prop
The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and significant discrepancies in eyewitness accounts can undermine the reliability of their testimonies.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, and the importance of credible and consistent witness testimonies.
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 for mass murder under 302/149 IPC set aside due to unreliable, contradictory ocular evidence from related witnesses; doubtful night identification, improbable presence/story; benefit of do....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; significant discrepancies and contradictions in witness testimonies preclude a conviction.
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....
Point of law: Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting ....
In criminal cases, convictions must be based on evidence establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; general allegations without specific evidence against accused do not suffice.
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
