Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, DEEPAK ROSHAN
State of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Yadav @ Sanjay Prasad Yadav, S/o Sri Bal Kishun Mahto @ Balkrishn – Respondent
Judgment :
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
1. Heard Mr. B.M. Tripathi, learned senior counsel for the appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 337 of 2020 and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P.
2. Death Reference No. 01 of 2020 has been put up before us for confirmation of the death sentence imposed upon both the convicts under Section 366 Cr.P.C.
3. One of the convicts (appellant) has preferred a separate appeal being Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 337 of 2020 which is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated14-02-2020 (sentence passed on 19-02-2020) passed by Sri Vishwa Nath Shukla, learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Koderma in S.T. Case No. 75/2016, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 458/149 and 302/149 IPC and have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 02 years for the offence under Section 147 , rigorous imprisonment for 03 years for the offence under Section 148 , rigorous imprisonment for 14 years along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each for the offence under Section 458/149 and in default in payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for 2 years and they have also been sentenced to death under Section
Eyewitness accounts unreliable due to inconsistencies, visibility doubts (distances, covered faces, hiding), suppressed initial report; benefit of doubt requires acquittal in multiple murder case by ....
Conviction requires consistent evidence; inconsistencies and contradictions raise reasonable doubt regarding guilt.
Conviction based solely on testimonies of related witnesses is unsafe without independent corroboration, as evidenced by inconsistencies and lack of physical evidence.
The prosecution must establish charges beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictions in witness testimony and failure to seize crucial evidence can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
Circumstantial evidence – Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be justified only when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible ....
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
The acquittal of the accused was based on the prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt amidst significant inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies.
Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions in testimonies undermine the case.
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
