Back
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Kishore Sahni, Son of Narayan Sahni – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Ashutosh Kumar, J.)
Heard Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned Advocate for the sole appellant and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned APP for the State.
2. The appellant has been convicted under Sections 302, 341 and 323 of the IPC vide judgment dated 27.04.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khagaria in connection with Sessions Trial No. 287 of 2015, arising out of Khagaria P.S. Case No. 338 of 2015. By order dated 08.05.2017, he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC.
3. No separate sentence has been awarded to the convict for the offence under Sections 341 and 323 of the IPC.
4. The appellant is alleged to have killed his own younger brother in the night of 26.05.2015. The FIR was lodged by the wife of the deceased, viz., Rubi Devi (P.W.6). She has alleged that at about 6.00 P.M. on 25.05.2015, for no good reason, her sister-in-law i.e. the wife of the appellant hit her by a sharpnel. She was taken by her husband (deceased) to hospital for treatment. When the couple came back, the appellant is said to have met them at the
The principle of benefit of doubt necessitates acquittal when the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, especially with inconsistent eyewitness testimony.
Familial relationships do not inherently discredit witness testimony; credible evidence can uphold a conviction despite investigative shortcomings.
The importance of proving guilt beyond all reasonable doubt in cases relying on circumstantial evidence.
The principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that inconsistencies in witness testimony can lead to reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittal.
The court established that the failure to communicate material circumstances to the accused during trial can lead to a miscarriage of justice, necessitating acquittal if the prosecution's case is not....
The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and procedural lapses, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
The prosecution must establish basic facts before invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act; failure to do so results in the benefit of doubt for the accused.
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
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
