Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Musafir Yadav @ Veer Singh @ Mosafir Yadav, S/o. Late Shiv Prasad Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA, J.)
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 dated 06.06.2013 and order of sentence dated 12.06.2013 passed in Sessions Trial No. 149 of 2009 in connection with Itarhi P.S. Case No. 36 of 2007 dated 05.04.2007 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge- IVth, Buxar, whereby and where under the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 436 /34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and Rs. 5000/- fine has been imposed and on failure of payment of fine, the appellants will further have to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year with the direction that all sentences shall run concurrently.
2. Heard Mr. Digvijay Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant assisted by Mr. Kumar Rajiv and Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, learned APP for the State.
3. The brief fact leading to the filing of the present appeal on the basis of written statement given by Guddu Yadav (informant) on 05.04.07, at about 2 PM in the day, a fire broke out in the house. At that time, he was sleep
Suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal trials, necessitating clear and cogent evidence for a conviction.
The conviction for arson was overturned due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies, granting the appellant the benefit of doubt.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt must result in acquittal.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and failure to comply with procedural requirements, such as questioning under Section 313, can undermine a conviction.
The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused due to significant inconsistencies and contradictions in witness testimonies.
Conviction in criminal trials requires proof beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for a guilty verdict.
The need for credible evidence, including material exhibits and independent witnesses, to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to provide convincing and reliable evidence to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubts.
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
