Back
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Suresh Yadav, Son of Dahari Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.
Heard Mr. Prithvi Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The present appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of acquittal dated 07.01.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bagaha, West Champaran (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Sessions Trial No. 158 of 2015 arising out of Simra P.S. Case No. 03 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has held that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). The learned trial court has acquitted the accused persons.
3. The prosecution case is based on the fardebyan of the uncle of the deceased who has been examined as PW-13 in course of trial. According to the informant, his nephew Rajan Yadav (since deceased) aged about 23-24 years had gone to the neighbouring village Semarahani with the co-villager boys to watch a dance. He had gone there in the night of 16.01.2013 but did not return in the morning. It is state
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to provide credible evidence leads to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction, particularly when witness accounts are contradictory.
A conviction under Section 302 IPC can be upheld based solely on the testimony of the informant if corroborative evidence exists, even in absence of independent witnesses.
The reliability of eyewitness accounts and dying declarations is crucial for a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC; discrepancies and doubts in witness testimonies can lead to acquittal.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, including the place of occurrence and the examination of crucial ....
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere allegations without corroborative evidence are insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution must provide reliable and compelling evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; hearsay and inconsistent testimonies do not suffice.
The prosecution must establish a clear criminological chain in circumstantial evidence cases; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
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
