Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Shailendra Singh
Karan Yadav Son of Prakash Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.Shashi Bala Verma, learned Additional P.P. for the State.
2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 01.06.2019 and order of sentence dated 13.06.2019 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 222 of 2016 (State vs. Karan Yadav and Anr.) whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has convicted this appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 27 (1) of the ARMS ACT for murder of the deceased Gulshan Yadav @ Sarwan Yadav by firearm and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- only. On failure to pay the fine, the appellant shall undergo an additional simple imprisonment for a period of two months. He has been further sentenced for five years for the offence under Section 27 (1) of the ARMS ACT and has been directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he will have to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. All the sentences are to run concurrently
The prosecution bears the burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and significant inconsistencies in witness testimony can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, including the place of occurrence and the examination of crucial ....
The prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on uncorroborated witness testimony, especially from related parties, is insufficient for conviction.
The conviction was overturned due to insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies, affirming that convictions must be based on reliable and corroborative evidence beyond a reasona....
Conviction based solely on testimonies of related witnesses is unsafe without independent corroboration, as evidenced by inconsistencies and lack of physical evidence.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistent eyewitness accounts can lead to acquittal.
The presumption of innocence is paramount in criminal trials; an acquittal should only be overturned if the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was not demonstrated in this case.
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
