Back
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Shashi Mahto – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Vipul M. Pancholi.—The present appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the impugned judgment of conviction dated 12.07.2017 and order of sentence dated 18.07.2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Rosera, Samastipur, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 177 of 2013 (arising out of Rosera P.S. Case No. 207 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 976 of 2011) by which the appellant/convict has been convicted for the offences under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. and 27(1) of the Arms Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20000/- for the offence u/s 302 of the I.P.C. and, in default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo R.I. for 6 (six) months. He has further been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 (three) years and a fine of Rs. 10000/- for the offence u/s-27(1) of the Arms Act and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further 3(three) months R.I. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. Heard Mr. Rajendra Narain, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Jagdhar Prasad for the appellant, Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. for the respo
The court holds that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to significant contradictions in eyewitness accounts and absence of supporting medical evidence, warranting acqu....
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; unreliable eyewitness testimony, especially from near relatives, cannot substantiate a conviction.
The prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on uncorroborated witness testimony, especially from related parties, is insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to reliance on uncorroborated eyewitness testimony from interested parties and lack of independent evidence.
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 prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; uncorroborated and contradictory witness accounts render convictions unsafe.
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
