Back
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Punit Nath Singh @ Budha Singh – 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 ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the judgment dated 29.01.2016 and order of sentence dated 04.02.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Saran, Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 298 of 2009 New. 2469 of 2014, arising out of Baniapur P.S. Case No. 144 of 2008 G.R. No. 2462 of 2008, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-each for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C. and, in default of payment of fine, the appellant in default, shall have further to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Further, they have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 of the I.P.C. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. At the outset, learned senior counsel for the appellants informs that appellant no. 1 namely, Punit Nath Singh @ Budha Singh has died during the p
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; inconsistencies and lack of independent witnesses can lead to quashing of conviction.
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 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.
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
Conviction under IPC 302/34 upheld on reliable sole eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence and witnesses, despite minor discrepancies and non-examination of investigating officer/docto....
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....
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
