Back
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, JITENDRA KUMAR
Arvind Kumar @ Mathura Prasad S/o Late Sohrayee Mahto – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)
1. Both the appeals have been taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. We have heard Mr. Shashank Chandra, the learned Advocate for the appellants (three in number in both the appeals) and Mr. Ajay Mishra, the learned APP for the State.
3. Appellant/Arvind Kumar @ Mathura Prasad has been convicted under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, whereas appellants/Ranjit Kumar and Manjit Kumar have been convicted under Section 302/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, vide judgment dated 27.09.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Biharsharif in Sessions Trial No. 491 of 2016, Trial No. 102 of 2017 arising out of Giriyak P.S. Case No. 108 of 2014. By order dated 11.10.2018, appellant/Arvind Kumar @ Mathura Prasad has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life, to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and to undergo R.I. for three years, to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms. So far as, appellants/Ranjit Kumar and Manjit Kumar are concerned, they have been sentenced to undergo R.I
The court acquitted the appellants due to insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies, emphasizing the need for credible proof in criminal convictions.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on credible evidence, including witness testimony and medical findings, even absent direct physical evidence like weapon recovery.
The conviction of the appellants for double murder was upheld as the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt through credible witness testimonies and medical evidence, despite the absence of....
The court established that inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence warrant acquittal in murder cases, highlighting the benefit of doubt principle.
The significance of corroborative eyewitness testimony in criminal cases, with minor discrepancies not undermining evidence credibility, unless they affect core facts established beyond reasonable do....
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 establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and procedural flaws in evidence can lead 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
