Back
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, JITENDRA KUMAR
Ranjit Yadav @ Karu Yadav, S/O Late Dhaneshwar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ashutosh Kumar, J.
We have heard Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate for the sole appellant who has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code; 27(1) of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide judgment dated 30.01.2021 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Gaya in SC/ST Trial No. 140 of 2016. By order dated 05.02.2021, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 2500/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC; imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act and life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2500/- for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to undergo further imprisonment for three months for each of the offences. The State has been represented by Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned APP.
2. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
3. One Girija Devi is said to have been shot dead by the appellant while she along with others including the informant (her mother-in-law) had b
An accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt when evidence is insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal.
The principle of 'benefit of doubt' applies where evidence is insufficient to firmly establish guilt, leading to acquittal.
The court determined that the appellant's actions constituted culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II due to lack of intent, modifying the conviction from murder under Section 302.
The absence of medical evidence and postmortem report creates reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and procedural flaws in evidence can lead to acquittal.
The court acquitted the appellants due to insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies, emphasizing the need for credible proof in criminal convictions.
Murder – Once dying declaration made by deceased is proved, fact that Ballistic Expert could not give a definite opinion on the question of whether cartridge recovered from body of deceased was fired....
The court established that inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence warrant acquittal in murder cases, highlighting the benefit of doubt principle.
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
