Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Shiv Chander Kamat @ Shiv Chandra Kamat S/o Late Bam Bholi Kamat – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
1. Heard Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Yogendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Vikas Kumar Jha, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and Mr. Purushottam Kumar Tanushri, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 6. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 3. Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has appeared on behalf of the State.
2. This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of acquittal dated 12.03.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) whereby and whereunder the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Supaul (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) has been pleased to acquit respondent nos. 2 to 6 of the charges under Sections 147 , 307/149, 302/149, 120(B) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 27 of the ARMS ACT in Sessions Trial No. 576 of 2022 arising out of Kishanpur P.S. Case No. 77 of 2022.
Prosecution Case
3. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan (Exhibit ‘P/3’) of Shiv Chander Kamat (PW-6) recorded by A.S.I. Jitendra
The acquittal of the accused is sustained as the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting the unreliability of witness testimonies and the significance of the presu....
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.
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 guilt beyond reasonable doubt; acquittal upheld due to insufficient evidence against the accused.
Conviction for mass murder under 302/149 IPC set aside due to unreliable, contradictory ocular evidence from related witnesses; doubtful night identification, improbable presence/story; benefit of do....
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
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
