Back
RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Satya Narain Yadav, S/o. Sunder Prasad Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J.)
Heard Ms. Sippy Sinha, Amicus Curiae 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 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.07.2013 in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2009, arising out of Bakhtiarpur P.S. Case No. 224/06 (G.R. No. 1760/06) passed by learned Sessions Judge, Saharsa (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial court’) by which the appellant/convict has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced rigorous imprisonment for ten years and 25,000/-fine and in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for two months.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that informant Rekha Devi has given written information to the Superintendent of Police, Saharsa on 19.5.2006 by mentioning therein that on 17.05.2006 in the night at 1’O clock, she was sleeping in her room which was constructed of fush and her mother-in-law was sleeping in the court yard nearby and in the night on
The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictions in the informant's testimony, along with lack of corroborative evidence, necessitate acquittal.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; any reasonable doubt benefits the accused.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in rape cases; contradictions in testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence led to the acquittal of the appellant.
The conviction for rape can be upheld based on the victim's credible testimony, even in the absence of corroborative physical evidence, emphasizing the importance of direct ocular evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of direct evidence to prove the awareness of the victim's caste for conviction under section 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Caste/Schedu....
The prosecution's reliance on the victim's inconsistent testimony did not meet the evidentiary standard required for conviction, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
The conviction for rape was quashed due to unreliable victim testimony, lack of corroborative evidence, and unexplained delay in FIR lodging.
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
