Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Ashutosh Kumar, Jitendra Kumar
Pankaj Kumar Pandey, Son of Late Harimohan Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
Both the appeals have been taken up together and are being disposed off by this common judgment.
2. Pankaj Kumar Pandey and Lal Babu Yadav are the appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 202 of 2016, whereas Binod Das is the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 274 of 2016.
3. Mr. Jagnnath Singh and Ms. Renu Jha, the learned Advocates have appeared for appellant No. 1 & 2, namely, Pankaj Kumar Pandey and Lal Babu Yadav [Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 202 of 2016] respectively, whereas appellant/Binod Das [Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 274 of 2016] has been represented by Mr. Milind Kumar Mishra, the learned Advocate.
4. The State, in both the appeals, has been represented by Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, the learned APP.
5. All the three appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 364(A)/34 of the IPC, whereas appellants/Pankaj Kumar Pandey and Lal Babu Yadav have also been convicted for the offence under Section 307 /34 of the IPC. Additionally, appellant/Binod Das has been held guilty for the offence under Section 27(1) of the ARMS ACT . The judgment of conviction has been delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bagaha, West Champaran on 10.02.2016 in Sessions T
Convictions based on familial testimonies alone, without corroborating evidence, cannot uphold; insufficient evidence warrants acquittal.
Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; witness inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence can lead to acquittal.
Conviction requires consistent evidence; inconsistencies and contradictions raise reasonable doubt regarding guilt.
The court established that the testimony of eyewitnesses, especially those with a history of enmity towards the accused, must be scrutinized carefully, and that the prosecution bears the burden of pr....
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and procedural flaws in evidence can lead to acquittal.
The court modified the conviction from attempted murder to a lesser charge due to insufficient evidence of intent and lack of specific identification of the appellants as shooters.
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
