Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Md. Imteyaz @ Imteyaz Alam S/o Md. Rahimtullah – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Addl. P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 as also perused the learned trial court’s records.
2. This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of acquittal dated 20.06.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, Sheohar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) has been pleased to acquit respondent nos. 2 and 3 of the charges under Sections 307 /34, 504/34 and 506/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short ‘IPC’) in connection with S.Tr. No. 69 of 2021 arising out of Piprahi P.S. Case No. 153 of 2020.
Prosecution case
3. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of Imteyaz Alam who has been examined as PW-2 in the present case. In his fardbeyan, recorded by S.H.O. of Piprahi police station, Shoehar on 02.08.2020, the informant has stated that on 30.07.2020 at about 2.00 PM, his father Rahimullah was working in his Khalihan, in the meantime, Md. Shabbir @ Jumman, son of Md. Jalil and Md. Ashraf, son of Md. Shabbir @ Jumman , both resident of Basahiya Sheikh, P.S.-Pipr
The prosecution must prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt; inadequate evidence resulted in the acquittal of the accused as intent to kill was not established.
Prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt; lack of independent witnesses and material inconsistencies led to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and discrepancies in witness testimonies and non-examination of the Investigator can lead to acquittal.
The appellate court found sufficient evidence to convict respondent No.1 for grievous injury despite contradictions in witness testimony, emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny in cases with prior....
The acquittal of accused is upheld as the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting the principle that enmity can lead to false implication.
The court emphasized the prosecution's burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting inconsistencies and the absence of independent corroboration in witness testimonies.
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused are entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt; the court found the injured witnesses' evidence credible.
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
