Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Harihar Thakur, S/o Chatur Thakur – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGEMENT :
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. The instant Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26th February, 2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 180 of 2001 and 32 of 2001, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 307/34 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C., imprisonment for 7 years for the offence under Section 397 of the I.P.C. and imprisonment for 3 years for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
Factual Matrix:-
2. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 15.12.2000, at about 06:00 P.M., the informant Umakant Sah (PW-9) riding on his newly purchased Rajdoot motorcycle of black colour reached near Trikoni river at Village Trikoni, then he saw in the light of his motorcycle, three persons were standing on the road in his front. In the slow speed of motorcycle, the informant saw Arjun Thakur and Harihar Thakur both the appellants and one unknown person in the light of his
The testimony of an injured eyewitness is highly credible and generally accepted unless compelling evidence to discredit it is presented, as upheld in prior Supreme Court rulings.
Attempt to murder – Intention to kill must be apparent from act of accused.
Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons - Benefit of doubt given to accused – Conviction set aside - On account of enmity based on litigation, there are chances of developing a false case and t....
Conviction affirmed – Offence of Murder - Prosecution evidence is trustworthy and prosecution has brought home the guilt of all the appellants by cogent, credible and trustworthy evidence.
Eyewitness testimony, especially from injured witnesses, holds significant evidentiary value in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 324 IPC based on consistent eyewitness accounts, while acquitting one appellant due to evidence of his absence during the incident.
The court emphasized the prosecution's burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting inconsistencies and the absence of independent corroboration in witness testimonies.
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
