Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Sourendra Pandey
Vijay Kumar, Son of Late Jharokhi Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. acquittal due to lack of evidence (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. prosecution's case based on circumstantial evidence. (Para 6) |
| 3. challenging the trial court's reasoning (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. circumstantial evidence and prosecution's burden (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. reliability of witness testimony questioned (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. prosecution fails to establish guilt (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. final judgment and dismissal of appeal (Para 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of acquittal dated 19.09.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) passed in Sessions Trial No. 113/2012, C.I.S. Registration No. 430/2014 arising out of Arer P.S. Case No. 150 of 2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st Court, Madhubani (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial court’). By the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has been pleased to acquit respondent nos. 2 to 4 of the charges under Section 302 /34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short ‘IPC’) giving them benefit o
The prosecution must provide reliable and compelling evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; hearsay and inconsistent testimonies do not suffice.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction, particularly when witness accounts are contradictory.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to provide credible evidence leads 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.
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....
The court upheld the conviction based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a clear motive and reliable witness testimonies linking the appellant to the murder.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere circumstantial evidence and delayed FIR weaken the case, necessitating independent corroboration.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, including the place of occurrence and the examination of crucial ....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of independent witnesses can lead to quashing of conviction.
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
