Legal Analysis: Conviction Upheld in Contested Case

In a recent legal case, the court’s thorough legal analysis played a crucial role in upholding the conviction amidst a contested scenario. The detailed examination of evidence and application of legal principles resulted in the decision that has far-reaching implications. Let’s delve deeper into how the court’s analysis shaped the outcome of this case.


  • The appellant was aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28.02.2017 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand.
  • The High Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence by the Sessions Court.
  • The appellant was convicted for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
  • Birendra Singh was tried separately and convicted for offences under Sections 302/34 IPC.
  • The High Court’s judgment dated 28.02.2017, upheld the appellant’s conviction and sentence.
  • Suraj Mandal, as P.W.27, was examined as an injured eye-witness in the case.
  • Appellant and another were tried for offenses under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
  • Appellant appealed against the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court.
  • 35 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove the case against the accused.
  • Doctor who performed post-mortem on the deceased and examined Suraj Mandal also testified.
  • The case was registered for offenses under Sections 302/307/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
  • Investigation was taken up by the CBI after the death of one of the accused during the High Court appeal.
  • Pandit and Pappu, brothers of Birendra Singh, were identified by witnesses at the scene of the incident.
  • A supplementary charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and another after their surrender/arrest.
  • Birendra Singh fired upon Nirmal Mehto, causing injuries and resulting in a charge-sheet against the appellant.

Also Read: Judicial Review of Delayed Writ Petition


  • The appellant’s advocate argued that there are material contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses regarding the role of the appellant in the offense.
  • It was claimed that it was not possible for the informant to provide a written statement (Fardbeyan) as per the prosecution.
  • The appellant’s advocate highlighted that there were originally five eye-witnesses mentioned by the prosecution, but ultimately only three were examined.
  • The defense stressed that it was not conclusively proven that the appellant was responsible for the victim’s death or for firing shots.
  • The prosecution’s decision to drop two eye-witnesses due to contradictions in their depositions was mentioned.
  • The State representative opposed the appeal, emphasizing that the written statement by the informant conflicted with the fact that the informant sustained a hand injury from a firearm.
  • The appellant’s legal counsel argued that the trial court and the High Court made a mistake in relying on the statements of the prosecution witnesses, pointing out the contradictions in their testimonies.
  • It was highlighted that there was no allegation of assault on the appellant in the FIR, casting doubt on the appellant’s presence at the scene of the incident.
  • The absence of any firearm recovery or seizure from the appellant was pointed out as well.
  • The defense emphasized that one of the witnesses could not definitively attribute the victim’s injury to the appellant, leading to doubts about the appellant’s involvement.
  • Considering the contradictions in the eye-witness testimonies, the defense argued that the appellant should benefit from the doubt.
  • The informant, P.W.27, is an injured eye-witness who suffered a firearm injury, as proven by medical evidence and the doctor’s deposition.
  • The appellant absconded for 13 to 15 years after the incident, leading to variations and contradictions in the evidence recorded later.
  • The conviction of the accused with the aid of Section 34 IPC was upheld by the High Court, establishing his presence and participation.
  • Minor contradictions in the evidence shall not benefit the accused when the accused’s participation has been proved.

Also Read: Ownership Dispute: Legal Analysis on Admission and Decree


  • The prosecution’s case is supported by the depositions of key witnesses P.W.7, P.W.8, and P.W.27.
  • Both trial courts found no reason to doubt the appellant-accused’s presence and active participation in the incident.
  • Minor contradictions in the witnesses’ depositions are attributed to the significant time gap of approximately 15 years since the incident.
  • The appellant’s presence at the scene, use of firearm, and injuries sustained are proven by medical evidence.
  • The appellant’s conviction under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 IPC is based on established participation in the crime.
  • The informant-injured eye-witness, P.W.27, had his trial separated.
  • The appellant evaded authorities and absconded for around 15 years following the incident.
  • The absence of a seized weapon should not lead to the acquittal of the accused
  • Presence and active participation of the accused in using a firearm must be established and proven for conviction

Also Read: Interpretation of Statutory Limitation under Section 263(2)


  • Both Trial Court and High Court have rightly convicted the appellant-accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
  • No interference of this Court is warranted.
  • The present appeal fails and deserves to be dismissed.


Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000580-000580 / 2018

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *