Back
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
Ranjay Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Vipul M. Pancholi, J.—Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Pranav Kumar for the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1145 of 2018, Kumari Sujata Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1119 of 2018 and Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Both the appeals are filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment of conviction dated 10.08.2018 and order of sentence dated 18.08.2018, passed by the court of learned Presiding Officer, F.T.C.-I, Nalanda, Biharsharif in Sessions Trial No.636/2010, arising out of Ashthawan P.S. Case No.31/2010, whereby the court has convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 27 of the Arms Act and they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand only) for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, the appellants have to undergo R.I. for a period of three years. The appellants are further sentence
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 prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; unreliable eyewitness testimony, especially from near relatives, cannot substantiate a conviction.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on related witnesses without corroboration is insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on witness testimony requires corroboration, especially when witnesses are near relatives.
The conviction upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, despite the absence of independent witnesses, affirming the trial court's judgment.
The prosecution must establish charges beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictions in witness testimony and failure to seize crucial evidence can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
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
