Back
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, KHATIM REZA
Munna Sao – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.—By a judgment and an order dated 11.08.2021/18.08.2021 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, in G.R. No. 816 of 2017, arising out of Nalanda, Rahui P.S. Case No. 283 of 2017, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:
| Appellant Name | Conviction under Section | Sentence | ||
| Imprisonment | Fine (Rs.) | In default of fine | ||
| Munna Sao | 30(a) of the I.P.C. | Rigorous Imprisonment for 11 years | 1,50,000/- | R.I. for 3 months. |
2. The said judgment and order of the trial court is under challenge in the present Criminal Appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for brevity).
3. We have heard Mr. Vikram Deo Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
4. The prosecution's case as disclosed in the First Information Report (F.I.R., for brevity), based on the self-statement of Sub-Inspector of Police Sunil Kumar Nirjhar (PW-7) on 13.10.2017 is that on receipt of a secret information at 03.20 pm on 13
The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt due to procedural irregularities and witness credibility issues.
The conviction under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act was set aside due to prosecution's failure to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt based on procedural violations.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistent witness testimony undermines the credibility of charges under the Bihar Excise Act.
Acquittal in excess liquor possession case set aside as perverse; no need for independent witnesses in patrolling chance recovery or independent seal custody; reliable police evidence suffices; convi....
Total non-compliance with NDPS procedural safeguards undermines convictions, particularly in absence of corroborative evidence from independent witnesses.
Non-compliance with statutory provisions and guidelines, doubts about the place of recovery, and serious prejudice caused by the non-examination of independent seizure witnesses can lead to the 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
