Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Ashok Mahto son of Gourango Mahato – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Per Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. We have already heard Mr. Navneet Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Satish Prasad, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.05.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Seraikella in S.T. No.136 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life FACTUAL MATRIX
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 23.02.2003 at about 09:30 p.m., informant Khudiram Mahto along with Dhaniram Mahto was present at the house of Ghasiram and when they came out towards the grill gate, they saw that Ashok, Nishikant and Bapikoyal were standing very close to the gate. Meanwhile, Ashok Mahto with intention to kill informant’s brother Dhaniram fired upon him then he fell down being disbalanced. Meanwhile, all the three accused jointly fired aiming the informant which could not hit him. It is alleged that at the time of occurrence the villagers assembled for seeing the pro
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evaluating witness credibility, identifying material contradictions in their testimonies, and considering the significance of ....
The conviction of the appellants for double murder was upheld as the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt through credible witness testimonies and medical evidence, despite the absence of....
The court acquitted the appellants due to insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies, emphasizing the need for credible proof in criminal convictions.
The court determined that the appellant's actions constituted culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II due to lack of intent, modifying the conviction from murder under Section 302.
The presumption of innocence is paramount in criminal trials; an acquittal should only be overturned if the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was not demonstrated in this case.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on credible evidence, including witness testimony and medical findings, even absent direct physical evidence like weapon recovery.
The court emphasized the necessity of credible evidence and reliable witness testimony for establishing guilt in criminal cases, leading to the reversal of the appellants' convictions.
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
