Back
RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Raj Kumar Bhatt @ Raj Kumar and Ors. S/O Late Bihari Bhatt – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The present appeals have been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the Judgment of conviction dated 03.04.2013 and order of sentence dated 05.04.2013 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-V, Ara Bhojpur in Sessions Trial No. 326 of 2009 arising out of Charpokhari P.S. Case No. 164 of 2004, instituted for an offence punishable under Sections 341 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of Arms Act, whereby and where under all appellants have been sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500 (five hundred) for an offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine they are further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of fifteen days and they are also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each for committing an offence punishable under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of the payment of fine, they are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and both the sentences shall run concurrently. Appellant nam
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence and contradictions in witness statements led to acquittal.
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to significant inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of reliable evidence, leading to the reversal o....
Attempt to murder – Intention to kill must be apparent from act of accused.
The court emphasized the necessity of reliable witness testimony and corroborative evidence in criminal cases, particularly where previous enmity exists, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
The prosecution failed to establish the identity of the assailant beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the appellant's 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 failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt due to unreliable witness testimonies and procedural errors, resulting in the acquittal of the appellants.
The court emphasized the prosecution's burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting inconsistencies and the absence of independent corroboration in witness testimonies.
Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons - Benefit of doubt given to accused – Conviction set aside - On account of enmity based on litigation, there are chances of developing a false case and t....
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
