Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Mansoor Alam, S/o Late Bhulan Mian – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA, J.
Heard Mr. Ali Muqtadin Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for the State Mr. Abhay Kumar.
2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C’) challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.10.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 1996 in connection with Sikta (Kangali) P.S. Case No. 06 of 1994 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C- I, West Champaran, Bettiah, whereby and where under the appellant has been convicted under Sections 20 -B(ii), 22 and 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine further imprisonment for 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 20 -B(ii) of the Act and further 10-10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50-50 thousand and on account of non-payment of fine further 6 months, each of simple imprisonment for the offences under Sections 22 and 23 of the Act and both s
The conviction based on uncorroborated and hostile witness testimonies, along with failure to examine key witnesses, does not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must provide credible evidence supported by corroborating witnesses; failure to examine critical witnesses creates reasonable doubt, necessitating acquittal.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to examine key witnesses, particularly the Investigating Officer, creates reasonable doubt that mandates acquittal.
Convictions must be grounded in reliable evidence; lack of medical and corroborative testimony undermines prosecutorial claims, thereby entitling the accused to acquittal.
The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to significant inconsistencies in testimonies and absence of key witnesses, leading to acquittal.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of reliable evidence, corroboration, fair investigation, and the fatal impact of non-examination of crucial witnesses and absence of essential documents in crim....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; lack of key evidence undermines conviction.
Criminal prosecution requires solid evidence, and non-examination of key witnesses by the prosecution introduces a reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittal.
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
