Back
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, ANSHUMAN
Pushanjit Burman @ Prasenjit – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Vipul M. Pancholi, J.—Both these appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure arise out of common judgment of conviction dated 13.12.2017 and the order of sentence dated 03.01.2018 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Saharsa in Sessions Trial No. 247 of 2015, arising out of Sonbarsa Raj P.S. Case No. 52 of 2015 (G.R. No. 940 of 2015), whereby both the appellants have been convicted for committing the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and they have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/- each and, in default of payment of fine, they will have to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months each.
2. As both these appeals arise out of the common judgment and order, learned counsel for the parties requested that both the appeals be heard together as the evidence is common in both these appeals and accordingly we have taken up both the appeals together for final disposal.
3. Heard Mr. Amarnath Singh, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned APP appearing on behalf of respo
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and any failure in procedural fairness, particularly in the examination of the accused, can lead to the quashing of a conv....
The mandatory provision of Section 313 CrPC aims to afford the accused an opportunity to explain each and every circumstance and incriminating evidence against them, and failure to comply with this p....
The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to reliance on uncorroborated eyewitness testimony from interested parties and lack of independent evidence.
Where there is perfunctory examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., matter is capable of being remitted to trial court from the stage at which prosecution was closed.
(1) Court must ordinarily eschew material circumstances not put to accused from consideration while dealing with case of particular accused.(2) Examination of accused – Court is empowered to take hel....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony and failure to examine material witnesses led to the appellant's acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the testimony of witnesses, even if related to the deceased, should not be automatically discarded, and minor discrepancies in the evidence sh....
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
