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
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 c
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.
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.
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
