Back
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, SHAILENDRA SINGH
Shahid Akram @ Munna – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Ashutosh Kumar, J.—We have heard Mr.Udit Naryan Singh for the appellant and Mr. Ajay Mishra for the State.
2. The sole appellant stands convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for the remainder of his life and a fine of Rs.50,000/-. The fine so realized from the appellant has been directed to be paid to Soni Khatoon, the widow of one of the deceased (Faiyaz) and in her absence, to her legal heirs vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.02.2017 and 10.02.2017, respectively, passed in Sessions Trial No.482 of 2011 arising out of Majhaulia P.S. Case No.327 of 2010 by the learned 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, West Champaran.
3. The case of the prosecution is that after a discussion in the family in front of the Panches for partition of property, a dispute arose between three brothers, one being the appellant and the two others being the deceased, with respect to apportionment of family property. When the suggestion of the appellant that a land contiguous to the house owned by the brothers which stood in the name of Faiyaz, one of the deceased, be given to him was denied by the two other brothers, the appellant got enraged and attacked
Familial relationships do not inherently discredit witness testimony; credible evidence can uphold a conviction despite investigative shortcomings.
The reliability of eyewitness accounts and dying declarations is crucial for a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC; discrepancies and doubts in witness testimonies can lead to acquittal.
The principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that inconsistencies in witness testimony can lead to reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittal.
The principle of benefit of doubt necessitates acquittal when the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, especially with inconsistent eyewitness testimony.
The court reaffirmed that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies warranted the benefit of doubt, leading to acquittal of the accuse....
The court acquitted the appellants due to insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies, emphasizing the need for credible proof in criminal convictions.
1. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. 2. The acquittal re-enforces and reaffirms the....
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
