Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI
Chanda Kharia, son of Late Amus Kharia – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar (now of Jharkhand) – Respondent
Judgment :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal, has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment of conviction dated 15.01.1998 and order of sentence dated 16.01.1998 passed by learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Gumla, in Sessions Trial No. 506 of 1987 whereby and whereunder the present appellants had been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, as per the fardbeyan dated 20.01.1986, of the informant Khudi Singh (P.W.-1), recorded by the Officer-in-Charge, Raidih Police Station, is that land dispute was continuing between the informant and Amus Kharia (father of the appellants herein). Informant further stated that land dispute was pending in the Palkot Circle office and on 20.01.1986 at about 8 A.M., in the morning, informant along with his father Dilbodh Singh(deceased), aged about 65 years, were going to catch the bus, to attend the case at Palkot Circle office. As soon as they reached near Marda River, informant sat down to defecate and the informant’s father marched ahead.
3. In
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the testimony of witnesses, even if related to the deceased, should not be automatically discarded, and minor discrepancies in the evidence sh....
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....
Conviction on sole eyewitness unreliable due to contradictions in assault manner/place, house layout inconsistency, suspicious family conduct; benefit of doubt where guilt not proved beyond reasonabl....
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....
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
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 cannot rest on sole eyewitness testimony riddled with contradictions, delay in naming accused, medical inconsistencies, and unnatural conduct; prosecution must prove guil....
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
