Back
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Punimati – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeals arise from a high court judgment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual matrix of the case provided. (Para 3) |
| 3. accused challenge credibility of witness. (Para 4) |
| 4. prosecution defends statements of eyewitness. (Para 5) |
| 5. examination of witness testimonies. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 6. contradictory statements from crucial witnesses. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 7. court questions reliance on witness statements. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 8. prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 9. bail bonds discharged; pending applications disposed. (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 17.02.2021 rendered by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 904 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal No. 931 of 2012. The present Criminal Appeal No. 3647 of 2025 has been filed by original accused no. 2 and accused no. 3, whereas the Criminal Appeal No. 3648 of 2025 has been filed by original accused no. 6, accused no. 7 and accused no. 5.
3. Factual Matrix of the present case is as under:
4. Learned Counsel for the appellants mainly contended that:
5. The learned Advocate General (“AG”) for the respondent-State has opposed the
Murder and rioting – Merely because witness is an interested or related witness, his/her deposition cannot be discarded – Deposition of such witnesses is required to be scrutinized closely.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on witness testimony requires corroboration, especially when witnesses are near relatives.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on related witnesses without corroboration is insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; unreliable eyewitness testimony, especially from near relatives, cannot substantiate a conviction.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of independent witnesses can lead to quashing of conviction.
The conviction upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, despite the absence of independent witnesses, affirming the trial court's judgment.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and any failure in procedural fairness, particularly in the examination of the accused, can lead to the quashing of a conv....
In acquittal appeals, the prosecution bears the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with a double presumption in favor of the accused, making it difficult to overturn a trial court's acqui....
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
