Back
RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Dilip Thakur, Son of Nathuni Thakur – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Anirudh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, learned APP for the State.
2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C’) challenging the Judgment of conviction dated 26.04.2013 and order of sentence dated 30.04.2013 passed in Sessions Trial No. 952 of 2009/73 of 2012 in connection with Maniyari P.S. Case No. 51 of 2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Muzaffarpur, whereby and where-under the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 366A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and fine of Rs. 30,000/- and in default of payment of fine he will further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and further directed that half of the fine will be paid to the victim as compensation and all sentences shall run concurrently.
3. The brief fact leading to the filing of the present appeal is that on the basis of written statement given by informant Kishandeo Mahto, his daughter aged about 15 years student of Class-X in Baghi High School was goin
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies led to the appellant's acquittal.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear and consistent evidence to establish the elements of a criminal offense, particularly regarding the age of the victim ....
Prosecution must conclusively prove the victim's age and the accused's wrongful conduct to establish kidnapping or abduction under IPC sections 363 and 366.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that serious contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence, along with strong suspicion of concoction and afterthought due to de....
To convict for abetment under IPC, the prosecution must prove the abettor's intent and that the act was committed as a consequence of the abetment, which was not established here.
The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the minor status of the victim beyond a reasonable doubt, undermining the conviction under the POCSO Act.
The prosecution's failure to provide cogent evidence and independent corroboration resulted in the acquittal of the accused under Sections 366 and 376 IPC.
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
