Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Dehadrai Seeks Dismissal of Moitra's Dog Custody Suit
11 Mar 2026
Supreme Court Grants Bail to Porsche Father in Swap Case
11 Mar 2026
Natural Gas Supplies Prioritized Under Section 3 Essential Commodities Act Amid LNG Disruptions: Central Govt Order
11 Mar 2026
Delhi High Court Directs Ministries, CBFC to Implement Film Accessibility Features for Disabled Persons per RPWD Act Guidelines
11 Mar 2026
Foreign Nationals Entitled to Article 22(1) Grounds of Arrest in Known Language: Karnataka HC Sets at Liberty but Orders Handover to FRRO
11 Mar 2026
Madras HC Permits CBSE Student to Appear for Maths as Additional Subject Despite Policy Violation in Peculiar 'Rat Race' Circumstances
11 Mar 2026
Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Neha Rathore
11 Mar 2026
Menaka Guruswamy Elected India's First Openly Queer Rajya Sabha MP
11 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA
Anuj Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
Vipul M. Pancholi, J.—Heard Mr. Devashish Giri, learned counsel for the appellant/informant, Mrs. Soni Shrivastava, learned counsel for the private-respondents/original accused and Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the informant under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein, the appellant/informant has challenged the order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 83 of 2022 (arising out of Gopalganj P.S. Case No. 17 of 2021 dated 05.01.2021) whereby, the present private-respondents have been acquitted for the charges levelled against them for offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has separately provided a copy of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution witnesses before the trial court. After referring to the same, learned counsel would submit that there are four eye-witnesses to the occurrence in question. Learned counsel has
The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in eyewitness testimonies, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's acquittal.
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....
The appellate court emphasized that eyewitness accounts must be given due weight, and mere flaws in investigation do not automatically discount credible testimonies in murder trials.
The principles governing appeals against acquittal emphasize the presumption of innocence and the necessity for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, with the appellate court exer....
The appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial court if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, and the trial court's f....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial court if two reasonable....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on witness testimony requires corroboration, especially when witnesses are near relatives.
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
Listen Article