Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Ashutosh Kumar, Khatim Reza
Nathuni Sah, Son of Lal Parikha Sah – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
Both the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed off by this common judgment.
2.We have heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Tandon, the learned Advocate for the two appellants [Nathuni Sah in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 941 of 2017 and Bulet Sah @ Raj Kumar in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 935 of 2017] and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, the learned APP for the State.
3.The appellants have been convicted under Sections 34 2, 323, 324, 307, 302/34 and 120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Bettiah, West Champaran in Sessions Trial No. 06 of 2017, arising out of Chanpatiya P.S. Case No. 65 of 2016. By order dated 05.07.2017, they have been sentenced to undergo RI for six months, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer imprisonment for 15 days under Section 34 2/34 IPC; RI for six months, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer imprisonment for 15 days under Section 323 /34 IPC; RI for three years, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further
Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; witness inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence can lead to acquittal.
Point of Law : prosecution has failed to establish the charge brought against the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and contradictions and doubts in the evidence can lead to the f....
The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on consistent eyewitness testimony and corroborative medical evidence, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The judgment reinforces the importance of eyewitness consistency and timely reporting in establishing guilt in murder cases, despite claims of procedural delays.
A witness's credibility must withstand scrutiny; inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts can undermine the prosecution's case to the point of reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal.
The court established that eyewitness consistency and forensic evidence can substantiate a murder conviction, even in the face of claims regarding delayed reporting.
Convictions based on familial testimonies alone, without corroborating evidence, cannot uphold; insufficient evidence warrants acquittal.
In a case where some of the accused have not preferred an appeal, or even if their special leave petition is dismissed for default, in case relief of acquittal is granted to the remaining accused, th....
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
