Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Ramesh Chand Malviya
Nandu Mahto, S/o- Late Jidha Mahto @ Yodha Mahto – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accusations leading to trial and evidence (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. appeals regarding acquittal based on lack of evidence. (Para 5) |
| 3. trial court's findings on evidence (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. appellant's grievances regarding trial procedures (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. court's evaluation of procedural errors (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. remand for further evidence collection (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT :
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
Heard Mr. Rohit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Ritesh Kumar, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6.
2. By filing this appeal, the informant-appellant has challenged the judgment dated 31.07.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-10th, East Champaran at Motihari (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court/trial court’) in Sessions Trial No. 432 of 2011, CIS No. 8022 of 2015 arising out of Raxaul P.S. Case No. 189 of 2009 to the extent that the impugned judgment has acquitted Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 of the charges punishable under Sections 324 , 325 and
Trial courts must ensure the presence of key witnesses; failure to secure witness testimony can lead to acquittal despite oral evidence of injuries.
A court's acquittal is unsustainable if crucial evidence is not brought forth, particularly if the prosecution fails to examine key witnesses, indicating investigative negligence.
The court reaffirms that police conduct during official duties must not infringe on rights, prioritizing eyewitness testimony in establishing guilt over medical evidence, thus validating convictions ....
Appellate courts interfere with acquittal only if perverse or no reasonable view possible; non-explanation of accused injuries, witness contradictions, inconsistent prosecution version justify uphold....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and discrepancies in witness testimonies and non-examination of the Investigator can lead to acquittal.
The trial court must ensure all relevant witnesses are examined to prevent miscarriage of justice in dowry-related homicide cases.
Appellate interference with acquittal justified only if perverse, ignores material evidence, or no reasonable innocence view possible; here upheld due to contradictions, delay, defence credibility.
The failure to summon all prosecution witnesses constitutes a denial of fair trial, rendering the acquittal perverse and necessitating a retrial.
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
