Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Tejo Das, son of Jharkhandi Das – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against conviction for widow's murder over property (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments challenge conviction despite co-accused acquittal (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. prosecution witnesses mostly hearsay, hostile, or circumstantial (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. defense alleges false implication from village enmity (Para 19) |
| 5. biased eyewitness unreliable; cannot convict alone on parity evidence (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. conviction set aside; appeal allowed (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.02.2003 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ist Fast Track Court, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 384 of 2001, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 17.08.2001, the vill
Sole accused cannot be convicted on same evidence where co-accused acquitted unless clinching proof of individual guilt; unreliable eyewitness testimony with enmity, non-disclosure, and suspicious co....
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 ....
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on eyewitness testimony and established motive, dismissing intoxication as a defense.
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 circumstantial evidence requires proof of an unbroken link of evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not merely suspicion.
The prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to significant inconsistencies in witness testimonies.
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.
The conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld due to compelling circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the murder, ruling that suspicion alone is insufficient without definitive proof of ....
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
