Back
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Md. Babar @ Md. Babar Ali Son Of Md. Kamrul – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vipul M. Pancholi, J.
The present appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Code’) challenging the judgment of conviction dated 14.12.2018 and order of sentence dated 18.12.2018 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Araria in Sessions Trial No. 548 of 2016 (CIS No. 489 of 2016), arising out of Bhargama P.S. Case No. 39 of 2016, whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted the present appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 50,000/-each convict for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 of the I.P.C. and, in default of payment of fine, the convicts have to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year each.
2. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the present appeal has been filed by two appellants namely, appellant No. 1 Md. Babar @ Md. Babar Ali and appellant No. 2 Md. Rustam. Learned counsel Mr. Pratik Mishra appearing for the appellants, under instructions, submits that the appellant No. 2 Md. Rustam passed away during the pendency of the prese
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of independent witnesses can lead to quashing of conviction.
The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt leads to acquittal.
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 conviction upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, despite the absence of independent witnesses, affirming the trial court's judgment.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, including the place of occurrence and the examination of crucial ....
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; unreliable eyewitness testimony, especially from near relatives, cannot substantiate a conviction.
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
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
