Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Paramhansh Paswan, Son of Kishun Paswan – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. acquittal based on lack of evidence. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. appellant's arguments regarding evidence evaluation. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. discrepancies in witness testimonies. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. questionable reliability of eyewitness accounts. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 5. inconsistent descriptions of the incident. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. medical evidence lacks crucial supporting documentation. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. conclusion drawn from evidence scrutiny. (Para 28 , 29) |
| 8. dismissal of appeal affirmed by trial court's findings. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
(RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.)
Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Learned Special P.P. for the State is not present.
2. This appeal arises out of a judgment of acquittal dated 11.08.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, SC/ST, Jamui (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in SC/ST No. 28 of 2010 arising out of Jamui P.S. Case No. 269 of 2009, G.R. No. 1582 of 2009.
3. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has been pleased to record a finding that the prosecution has not been able to prove its
Prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt; lack of independent witnesses and material inconsistencies led to acquittal.
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 prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; discrepancies in witness testimonies and lack of independent corroboration led to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt; inadequate evidence resulted in the acquittal of the accused as intent to kill was not established.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; acquittal upheld due to insufficient evidence against the accused.
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; significant contradictions in witness testimony can invalidate a case leading to acquittal.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 324 IPC based on consistent eyewitness accounts, while acquitting one appellant due to evidence of his absence during the incident.
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
