Back
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, KHATIM REZA
Ganga Prasad Raut S/o Late Sonelal Raut – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure putting to challenge the judgment and order dated 16.03.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 327 of 2016/146 of 2018, arising out of Pupari P.S. Case No. 174 of 2010 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Sitamarhi has recorded acquittal of respondents No. 2 to 8 of charge of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said Pupari P.S. Case No. 174 of 2010, was registered at the instance of the informant (PW-2). The police, upon investigation, had submitted its final report since no evidence could be collected during the course of investigation by the police. The police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted with the remark that though the case was true, there was no clue. Apparently, on the basis of a protest-cum-complaint petition filed by the informant, the charge against the respondents was framed and they were put on trial. During the course of trial, altogether eight witnesses were examined including the appellant, who was the informant, as PW-2. The PWs. 1, 4 and 5
Inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and previous animosity can influence the court's decision and lead to acquittal.
The court reaffirmed that the prosecution's failure to establish credible evidence and the presence of contradictions among witnesses warrants the acquittal of the accused under the principle of bene....
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 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....
The defendant's conviction for murder was overturned due to unreliable eyewitness accounts and the prosecution's failure to examine the investigating officer, raising reasonable doubt.
Doctrine of “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” (false in one thing, false in everything) is not applicable in India.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to provide credible evidence leads to acquittal.
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
