Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
D.DASH, V. NARASINGH
Babu Hembram @ Badhu Hembram – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction details and factual background (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. defense arguments against conviction (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's analysis of evidence reliability (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. insufficiency of evidence for conviction (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. conclusion and order of appeal (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT :
D.Dash, J.
The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29th November, 2017 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baripada, District-Mayurbhanj in S.T. Case No.19/79 of 2013 arising out of G.R. Case No.236 of 2012 (C.T. No.946 of 12) corresponding to Udala P.S. Case No.80 of 2012 in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S.D.J.M.), Udala.
The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for committing the offence under section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) in default to undergo. Rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year for commission of the said offence.
It is pertinent to mention here that along with this accus
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, especially when relying on a solitary witness, and inconsistencies weaken the case.
The prosecution failed to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistent testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence.
The main legal point established is the requirement for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and the need for a complete chain....
The prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to significant inconsistencies in witness testimonies.
In criminal law, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, where a complete and unbroken chai....
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
A conviction cannot be based solely on the testimony of a solitary witness unless it meets the highest standard of reliability and is free from major contradictions.
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
