Back
SUDHIR SINGH, ANSHUMAN
Mithilesh Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Sudhir Singh, J. – Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The aforementioned criminal appeals arise out of same judgment of conviction and order of sentence, hence they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The criminal appeals have been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 06.06.2015 and the order of sentence dated 09.06.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Danapur, Patna in Sessions Trial No.230 of 2010 arising out of Naubatpur P.S. case No.98 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No. 871 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted under sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘I.P.C.’) and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- each for offences under sections 302/149 of the I.P.C. and they have been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months for offence under Section 147 of the I.P.C., one year rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 148 of the I.P.C. and three months rigorous imprisonment for offence under section 342 of the I.P
Mere failure of the prosecution in producing reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory relating to the weapon of offence and the blood-stained earth and clothes would not derogate from the veracit....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, emphasizing the importance of trustworthy evide....
The prosecution failed to substantiate charges beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and contradictions and doubts in the evidence can lead to the f....
The need for reliable witness testimonies and corroborating evidence, especially in the absence of independent witnesses, to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt.
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence that excludes every reasonable hypothesis except guilt; suspicion alone is insufficient for conviction.
Point of Law : When there are eyewitnesses to prove the charge, failure on the part of the prosecution to establish every link in the chain of circumstance would become irrelevant.
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
