Back
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, ANSHUMAN
Mahendra Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Vipul M. Pancholi, J.—The present appeal, filed under Sections 374(2) and 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’), arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 14.11.2017 and the order of sentence dated 22.11.2017 passed by learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran, in S.T. No.444 of 2012, arising out of Nautan (Jagdishpur) P.S. Case No.36 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each for the offence under Section 302/34 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the offence under Section 201/34 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, they have been ordered to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment each. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently and period spent under trial will be counted under sentences.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is as under:
2.1. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the informant Nagina Ram, re
The court upheld the conviction based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a clear motive and reliable witness testimonies linking the appellant to the murder.
The importance of credible eyewitness testimony, reliable and clinching evidence, and the exclusion of every possible hypothesis except guilt in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The court upheld the conviction under IPC Section 302, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt without the accused providing an adeq....
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence, including motive, in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and the evidence must be cogent, trustworthy, and exclude every possible hypo....
The Court reiterated that suspicion alone cannot replace proof, and the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in circumstantial cases.
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
