Back
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Mahesh Kumar @ Mahesh Das – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. – These two appeals have been listed simultaneously for consideration. In Cr. App.(DB) No.1432 of 2024, the appellant has assailed the judgment of acquittal dated 06.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Saran at Chapra (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) in Sessions Trial No.180 of 2021 arising out of Sonepur P.S. Case No.605 of 2020. In this Sessions trial two accused were facing the charges under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. They have been acquitted giving them benefit of doubt.
2. In Cr. App.(DB) No. 1434 of 2024, the appellant is the same and one person who has assailed the judgment of acquittal dated 06.09.2024 passed by the same trial court in Sessions Trial No. 364 of 2022. In this Session Trial only one accused was facing the charges under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Prosecution Case
3. The prosecution case is based on the written information of one Mahesh Kumar who in his written information dated 16.08.2020 alleged as under: –
“On 15.08.2020 between 06:30 P.M. to 07:30 P.M., a phone call came on the mobile of his son Dharmen
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction; reasonable doubts justify acquittal.
A court's acquittal is unsustainable if crucial evidence is not brought forth, particularly if the prosecution fails to examine key witnesses, indicating investigative negligence.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence that conclusively points to the guilt of the accused, and mere suspicion i....
The court upheld the conviction based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a clear motive and reliable witness testimonies linking the appellant to the murder.
Appeals against acquittal warrant interference only if trial findings perverse or impossible; circumstantial case fails without complete chain excluding innocence, as here due to witness inconsistenc....
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
