Back
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
State of Bihar – Appellant
Versus
Hardeo Mandal – Respondent
Vipul M. Pancholi, J. – This appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 22.12.1998 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Banka, in Sessions Trial No.40/97, whereby the three respondents herein have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Amarpur P.S. Case No. 33 of 1996 came to be registered on 13.02.1996 at 10.15 AM by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Amarpur P.S., against three named accused persons, respondents herein, under Section 302/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, based on the fard-beyan of the informant, Chandeshwari Yadav (PW 5). The informant, in his fard-beyan, recorded in the premises of Sadar Hospital, Banka, has stated that his son, namely, Shankar Yadav (deceased) is the owner of a ‘Tata Maxi’ which is used to be plied by him on Amarpur to Banka Road. One Hardeo Mandal (respondent No. 1 herein) too used to ply a ‘Tata Maxi’ in the same route. It is further stated that on 12.02.1996 with regard to timing of plying of vehicles, Hardeo Mandal of village Makduma raised a dispute and threatened his son that he will get him lifted within 24 h
The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in eyewitness testimonies, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's acquittal.
The principles governing appeals against acquittal emphasize the presumption of innocence and the necessity for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, with the appellate court exer....
An appellate court may reappraise evidence in acquittal appeals but maintains double presumption of innocence, requiring clear support for findings before altering trial court decisions.
In acquittal appeals, the prosecution bears the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with a double presumption in favor of the accused, making it difficult to overturn a trial court's acqui....
Eyewitness testimony carries significant evidentiary weight; convictions can be sustained on reliable single eyewitness accounts without need for corroboration if found trustworthy.
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.
An acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence, and the appellate court must not disturb findings unless clear error is established.
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
