Back
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
Sahita Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.—Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Pramod Mishra, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 as also Mr. Suraj Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4.
2. This appeal against acquittal has been preferred by the informant-appellant for setting aside the judgment dated 16.03.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Madhepura (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Sessions Trial No. 206 of 2021 arising out of Murliganj P.S. Case No. 368 of 2020. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has been pleased to acquit respondent nos. 2 to 5 of the charges under Sections 341, 323, 379, 307, 325, 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Prosecution Case
3. As per the prosecution case, on 26.11.2020 at about 07:00 AM, the son of the informant, namely, Rajeev Kumar Yadav went to Pratap Nagar Jhakran Rajni G.P. on motorbike to bring labourers for cultivating wheat. The informant alleged that she also went behind
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; discrepancies in witness testimonies and lack of independent corroboration led to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; acquittal upheld due to insufficient evidence against the accused.
Prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt; lack of independent witnesses and material inconsistencies led to acquittal.
The presumption of innocence is paramount in criminal trials; an acquittal should only be overturned if the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was not demonstrated in this case.
Conviction based solely on testimonies of related witnesses is unsafe without independent corroboration, as evidenced by inconsistencies and lack of physical evidence.
1. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. 2. The acquittal re-enforces and reaffirms the....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and discrepancies in witness testimonies and non-examination of the Investigator can lead to acquittal.
(1) Murder – In a situation when there is a group attack which lasted for only a few minutes, it is unreasonable to expect an eye-witness to recount each fact in mathematical detail.(2) Defective inv....
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
