IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Nundeo Mehra, son of Jhalku Mehra – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 474 of 1998(P) with Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 477 of 1998(P)
Decided On : 12-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. joint appeals against murder conviction heard together (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. prosecution alleges group murder and robbery motive enmity (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. challenge sole witness credibility due enmity non-corroboration (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. state upholds conviction on reliable eyewitness testimony (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. witness testimonies reveal inconsistencies and hostility (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 6. informant and io evidence shows place contradictions unseized lamp (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 7. defence challenges sole eyewitness reliability (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 8. conviction possible on trustworthy sole eyewitness (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 9. material contradictions discredit informant testimony occurrence (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69) |
| 10. defence witnesses equal weight unnatural conduct (Para 70 , 71 , 73 , 74 , 75) |
| 11. benefit doubt where prosecution fails reasonable proof (Para 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83) |
| 12. conviction set aside appeals allowed acquittal (Para 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88) |
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. Since both the appeals arise out of the common judgment of conviction dated 28.07.1998 and the order of sentence dated 29.07.1998 passed by the learned 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 306 of 1995, as such they have been tagged and taken up together for analogous hearing and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. It needs to mention herein that the appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.477 of 1998 (P), namely, the appellant no.2-Suresh Mehra, appellant no.3-Jhalku Mehra, appellant no.5-Dinesh Mehra, appellant no.7-Lukhu Mehra and appellant no.8-Lakxman Mehra had died during pendency of the said appeal and, as such, vide order dated 05.02.2026, the appeal being Criminal Appeal (DB) No.477 of 1998 (P) stands abated against these appellants.
Prayer
3. These appeals under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 28.07.1998 and the order of sentence dated 29.07.1998 passed by the learned 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 306 of 1995 whereby and whereunder the appellant, namely, Nundeo Mehra [ in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.474 of 1998(P)] has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the said offence whereas the alive appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.477 of 1998(P), namely, Naresh Mehra, Shanker Mehra and Jai Kant Mehra have been convicted under sections 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for two years for the said offence.
4. The prosecution story, in brief, as per the fardbayan dated 23.02.1995 of the informant Daya Devi (P.W-6), is that on 22.02.1995 at 9 PM, informant Daya Devi and her husband Kisto Mehra (P.W.-5), after having their meals were sitting at the dhaba (Verandah) of their house and an earthen lamp was burning. At that time, accused/ appellant-Nundeo Mehra armed with a bhujali, Shankar Mehra armed with a knife, Jhalku Mehra with axe and Laxman Mehra, Suresh Mehra, Naresh Mehra, Dinesh Mahra, Lukhu Mehra and Jaikant Mehra, all armed with lathi entered the house of the informant and Nundeo Mehra, Shankar Mehra and Jhalku Mehra called out the name of the informant’s husband and said that they would kill Kisto Mehra, upon which Kisto Mehra fled away. Thereafter, all the accused persons came to the dhaba (Verandah) and searched for Kisto Mehra.
5. It is further stated in the fardbeyan of the informant that when the accused persons could not find the husband of the informant, then Nundeo Mehra, Shankar Mehra and Jhalku Mehra dragged out Santu Mehra(deceased), aged about 65 years, the father-in-law of the informant, who was sleeping inside the room and Nundeo Mehra assaulted with bhujali on the fore- head, neck and nose and kill
Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of W.B.
Kuriya and another vs. State of Rajasthan
Kalu @ Amit vs. State of Haryana
Sheelam Ramesh v. State of A.P.
Munshi Prasad v. State of Bihar
Mahendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Rang Bahadur Singh & Ors. Vrs. State of U.P.
Krishnegowda & Ors. Vrs. State of Karnataka
State of Haryana Vrs. Bhagirath & Ors.
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 cannot stand if eyewitness testimony is contradictive and lacks corroboration, underscoring the necessity for reliability in criminal prosecutions.
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 testimony requires reliability and ring of truth; unsustainable amid inconsistencies, improbabilities like post-alcohol escape, absent corroboration, forensics, warranti....
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....
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
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.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.