Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI
Mohanlal Tudu, son of Sri Rawan Tudu – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) – Respondent
Judgment :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 03.07.1998 and Order of sentence dated 04.07.1998 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Godda, in Sessions Case No.138 of 1997/43 of 1997 by which the appellant has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
Factual Matrix
2. This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, deems it fit and proper to refer the background of institution of prosecution case. The prosecution story in brief as per the allegation made in the First Information Report reads hereunder as :-
The informant Marangmai Hanada, widow of late Lopsa Soren of village Harkatte, gave her fardbeyan on 14.04.97 at 7:00 A.M. alleging that there is no male member in her house and she along with her widowed daughter Balamai Soren and her four children live in the house. For last 2 to 3 years, she had kept Basta Murmu(deceased) as servant.
In the last night Basta Murmu had slept in the Verandah. At about 12 to 1 ‘O' clock in the night she woke-up hearing
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....
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 302/34 IPC unsustainable on uncorroborated, contradictory testimony of interested sole eyewitness; benefit of reasonable doubt mandates acquittal where prosecution fails to p....
The testimony of a witness must be trustworthy and free from major contradictions in order to convict the accused. The prosecution must prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubts.
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 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 prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; significant discrepancies and contradictions in witness testimonies preclude a conviction.
Conviction can be based on a sole eyewitness if credible, but significant inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence can lead to acquittal.
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
