Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Binda Singh, Son of Late Munsi Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA, J.
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh assisted by Ms. Rushali and Mr. Prabhojot and Mr. A.M.P Mehta learned APP for the State.
2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 08.12.2009 and order of sentence dated 10.12.2009 in Sessions Trial No. 219 of 1997/113 of 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-V, Aurangabad has convicted the appellants under Sections 376 , 379 and 448 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’) and sentenced them to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 448 of the IPC. The accused/appellant is further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 6 months in case of non-payment of fine and all the sentences awarded shall run concurrently.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal on the basis of the FIR, the prosecution case in br
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.
The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to significant inconsistencies in testimonies and absence of key witnesses, leading to acquittal.
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 conviction for rape can stand on the sole testimony of the victim if it inspires confidence, despite deficiencies in the investigation process.
The prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictions in the informant's testimony, along with lack of corroborative evidence, necessitate acquittal.
The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of corroborative evidence and significant inconsistencies in the victim's testimony.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; any reasonable doubt benefits the accused.
Convictions must be grounded in reliable evidence; lack of medical and corroborative testimony undermines prosecutorial claims, thereby entitling the accused to acquittal.
Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in sexual offences; inconsistent statements and lack of evidence weaken claims against the accused.
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
