Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, AMBUJ NATH
Biseshwar Mandal @ Visheshwar Mandal, S/o Late Jhari Mandal – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl. P.P. for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.01.2011 (sentence passed on 31.01.2011) passed by Shri Sanjay Kumar Chandhariyavi, learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Jamtara in S.T. No. 160A/1999, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 302/149/148/452 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence u/s 302/149 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine to undergo further S.I. for 15 days, 01-year S.I. for the offence u/s 148 of the IPC, 02 years S.I. along with a fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence u/s 452 of the IPC and in case of default in payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 10 days. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Purni Devi recorded on 19.11.1998, in which, it has been stated that on the same day Bisheswar Mandal, Dineshwar Mandal, Gurusai Mandal, Aklu Mandal all armed with farsa,
The conviction for murder based solely on a solitary eyewitness's testimony was overturned due to contradictions and lack of corroboration from other witnesses.
Conviction based on corroborated eyewitness testimony and medical evidence can be upheld despite procedural lapses; compensation imposed for injuries.
Conviction for murder upheld based on consistent eyewitness accounts despite concerns about the independence of witnesses, highlighting the relevance of cohesive testimonies over minor contradictions....
The court ruled the absence of premeditated intent in the assault, leading to a modification of the conviction from murder to a lesser charge under section 304 Part-II of the IPC.
The court emphasized the necessity of credible evidence for conviction, finding significant contradictions in witness testimonies and lack of physical evidence, leading to reasonable doubt about the ....
The court emphasized that contradictions in eyewitness testimonies undermine the prosecution's case, necessitating the reversal of convictions due to insufficient evidence.
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
