Back
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, JITENDRA KUMAR
Raja Paswan – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Ashutosh Kumar, J.—Both the appeals were taken up together for hearing.
2. Appellant/Raja Paswan [Cr. App. (DB) No. 148 of 2018] has been convicted vide judgment dated 23.11.2017 under Sections 148, 307, 302 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Nalanda at Biharsharif in connection with Sessions Trial No. 108 of 2016/Trial No. 37 of 2016, arising out of Bihar P.S. Case No. 368 of 2015. By order dated 06.12.2017, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 148 of the IPC; to undergo R.I. for five years, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer R.I. for four months under Section 307 of the IPC; to undergo R.I. five years, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer R.I. for four months and to further undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer R.I. for four months under Section 302 of the IPC.
3. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
4. The rest of the appellants viz., Ravi Paswan, Faujdari Paswan, Gautam Paswan and Pratap Paswan in
The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt due to unreliable witness testimonies and procedural errors, resulting in the acquittal of the appellants.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistent eyewitness accounts can lead to acquittal.
The need for caution in convicting accused based on the testimonies of injured eyewitnesses, especially in cases of free fights where injuries on the accused are not properly explained.
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....
A conviction cannot stand when there are significant contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, raising doubts about the prosecution's case.
Culpable homicide distinguished from murder based on intention and knowledge; knowledge suffices for conviction under Section 304(II) of IPC, while failure to explain accused injuries does not negate....
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
