Back
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, JITENDRA KUMAR
Pappu Yadav S/o Sri Yogendra Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ashutosh Kumar, J.
1. Heard Mr. Ajay Mukharjee and Mr. Sunil Prasad, the learned Advocates for the appellant and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 26.08.2016 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Banka in Sessions Trial No. 519/2014/Trial No. 522/2016 arising out of Amarpur P.S. Case No. 107/2014, G.R. No. 708/2014. By order dated 01.09.2016, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for three months for the offence under Section 302 IPC and R.I. for seven years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for three months for the offence under Section 201 IPC.
3. In an unfortunate incident, young siblings of the age of five years and two years respectively, were found dead in a well.
4. The allegation has been raised by the mother of the children(deceased) that her husband/appellant (father of the deceased children) had killed both of them and had thrown them in
Suspicion alone cannot substitute for proof in criminal cases; the prosecution must establish a clear chain of circumstantial evidence to support a conviction.
Point of Law : Any weakness in the defence case would not obviate the prosecution from establishing the charge based on circumstantial evidence.
The principle of benefit of doubt necessitates acquittal when the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, especially with inconsistent eyewitness testimony.
The prosecution must prove each circumstance in a case based on circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to establish homicidal death warrants acquittal.
The principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that inconsistencies in witness testimony can lead to reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittal.
The court established that the failure to communicate material circumstances to the accused during trial can lead to a miscarriage of justice, necessitating acquittal if the prosecution's case is not....
The prosecution must establish basic facts before invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act; failure to do so results in the benefit of doubt for the accused.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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
