Back
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, SHAILENDRA SINGH
Urmila Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.—This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the wife of the informant (since deceased) for setting aside the judgment dated 31.10.2023 passed in Sessions Trial No. 615 of 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) arising out of Gaighat P.S. Case No. 227 of 2014 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has been pleased to acquit the accused persons who are Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 in the appeal of the charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’).
Prosecution case
2. The prosecution case is based on the fardebyan of one Tapeshwar Rai recorded by Vivekanand Mishra, ASI, Gaighat police station in Shri Krishna Medical College and Hospital, Muzaffarpur (‘SKMCH, Muzaffarpur’). The informant alleged that on 13.07.2014 at about 04:00 pm, while he was engaged in grazing his buffalo in Ladaur Gachhi, Ram Jatan Rai, Ramesh Rai, Naresh Rai, Ranjeet Rai, Sanjeet Rai and Sawan Rai came there. They had a previous enmity with the informant for the reason that the informant had depo
The prosecution must prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt; inadequate evidence resulted in the acquittal of the accused as intent to kill was not established.
The court ruled that mere infliction of simple injuries does not imply intent to kill, emphasizing that the determination of culpability under Section 307 IPC hinges on the accused's intention.
The presumption of innocence is paramount in criminal trials; an acquittal should only be overturned if the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was not demonstrated in this case.
The prosecution must prove intent and circumstances for a conviction under Section 307 IPC; otherwise, the accused benefit from reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt goes in favor of the accused when the evidence is inconsistent and unreliable.
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
