Back
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Lalbabu Pandit @ Krishna Patel Son of Bhikhari Pandit – 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 ‘Code’) challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.05.2019 passed by learned Presiding Officer, F.T.C. II, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 263 of 1996, arising out of Chenari P.S. Case No. 58 of 1995, G.R. No. 1642/1995, whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted the present appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 307/34, 323 and 302/34 of the I.P.C., 5 years for Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. and imprisonment for life under Section 302 of I.P.C. and the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants submits that after filing of the present appeal, Appellant No. 2 Bhikhari Pandit has died and, therefore, the present appeal stands abated qua Appellant No. 2 Bhikhari Pandit.
3. We have, therefore, considered the present appeal qua the Appellant No. 1 and Appellant No. 3.
4. The prosecution story, in brief, is as under:-
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on related witnesses without corroboration is insufficient for 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 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.
Murder and rioting – Merely because witness is an interested or related witness, his/her deposition cannot be discarded – Deposition of such witnesses is required to be scrutinized closely.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and any failure in procedural fairness, particularly in the examination of the accused, can lead to the quashing of a conv....
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; unreliable eyewitness testimony, especially from near relatives, cannot substantiate a 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.
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
