Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI
Nundeo Mehra, son of Jhalku Mehra – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) – Respondent
| 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) |
J
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.
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
