Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Sourendra Pandey
Amit Kumar S/o Shree Nand Kishor Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as also perused the learned trial court’s records.
2. The present appeal against acquittal has been preferred by the appellant for setting aside the judgment of acquittal dated 21.05.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-5th, East Champaran at Motihari (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Session Trial No. 231 of 2005/CIS No. 1719 of 2016 (Arising out of Sugauli P.S. Case No. 33 of 2004) registered for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short ‘IPC’). By the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court has been pleased to acquit the two accused, i.e., Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 namely Krishna Mishra and Munna Pandey who were facing trial for murder of one Vicky.
Prosecution Case
3. The police case was registered on the basis of an information furnished by the local Chowkidar Jhunjhun Raut (P.W. 11) who made his fardbeyan before police that on 15.03.2004 he had found a dead body on a pakki road at a distance of 200 yards East from Dhangawan Pokhr
The appeal against acquittal was dismissed as the prosecution failed to establish a clear circumstantial chain of evidence, reinforcing the principle that acquittal enhances the presumption of innoce....
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....
In criminal appeals, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt through a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, especially where direct evidence is absent, reinforcing a presumptio....
An appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and can only overturn an acquittal if the trial court's reasoning is perverse or unsupported by the evidence.
The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the upholding of the acquittal.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquittals are reviewed under strict guidelines favoring the presumption of innocence.
The prosecution bears the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in homicide cases, particularly when relying on circumstantial evidence.
In cases of circumstantial evidence, a complete chain of proof is essential for conviction; mere suspicion is insufficient, and the presumption of innocence must be maintained.
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
