Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Chandramani Singh, Son of Charitar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P. for the State.
2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 01.11.2002 and order of sentence dated 08.11.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. IV), Garhwa in Sessions Trial No. 503 of 1988, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 2500/- each.
3. It is to be mentioned at the very outset that altogether six accused persons were put under trial and held guilty. The present appeal was also filed by all the six convicts, out of them, appellant no. 1 namely, Lal Mohan Singh, Son of Charitar Singh, appellant no. 4 namely, Charitar Singh, Son of Late Dukhi Singh and appellant no. 6 namely, Kreshan Singh, Son of Late Dukhi Singh have died and their appeal have been abated vide order dated 24.04.2025. This appeal is now heard on behalf of appellants namely, Chandramani Singh, Son of Late Charitar Singh, Chhotan Singh, Son of Lat
Murder conviction on circumstantial evidence requires complete unbroken chain excluding innocence; absent proof of foundational facts like last seen together and court direction, appellants entitled ....
Conviction requires credible evidence beyond reasonable doubt; untrustworthy eyewitness testimony cannot sustain a murder conviction.
Conviction requires reliable evidence; inconsistent eyewitness testimony undermines the case, leading to acquittal.
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence, establishing the accused's guilt through a combination of testimonies, confessional statements, and lack of viable alterna....
Conviction under Section 306 I.P.C. cannot be treated as a minor offence in relation to Section 302 I.P.C.; prosecution failed to prove cause of death or allegations of cruelty.
Conviction under Section 302 upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony, despite the informant being declared hostile; demonstrates the reliability of child witnesses in criminal proceedings.
The conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld as the prosecution established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies, including the appellant's own a....
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
