Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Raj Kumar Das, Son of Late Chandra Deo Das – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.)
All the appeals have been taken up together for hearing.
2. We have heard Sri Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned Advocate for three of the appellants, whereas Mr. Uday Kumar and Ms. Madhubala Verma, learned Advocates for two of the other appellants.
3. The State is represented by Mr. Binod Bihari Singh and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned APPs.
4. All the appellants (five in number) have been convicted for the offences under Sections 302 /34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the ARMS ACT vide judgment dated 06.12.2019 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in connection with Sessions Trial No. 444 of 2011/Registration No. 175 of 2014, arising out of Sahiyara P.S. Case No. 16 of 2010. By order dated appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. Further the appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer imprisonment of one months for the offence under Section 27 of the ARMS
The court established that inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence warrant acquittal in murder cases, highlighting the benefit of doubt principle.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and procedural flaws in evidence can lead to acquittal.
The court acquitted the appellants due to insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies, emphasizing the need for credible proof in criminal convictions.
The conviction of the appellants for double murder was upheld as the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt through credible witness testimonies and medical evidence, despite the absence of....
The court ruled that significant inconsistencies and doubts in witness testimony and FIR delay warranted acquittal, reaffirming that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is essential in criminal trials.
The court upheld the conviction for murder but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, emphasizing the need for extreme caution in imposing capital punishment.
The prosecution must prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts, and the quality of evidence is crucial in establishing the guilt of 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
