IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Ashutosh Kumar, A. Abhishek Reddy, JJ.
Ravi Kumar and Ors. S/o - Lalbaboo Prasad and ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.383 of 2014, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 508 of 2014, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 609 of 2014
Decided On : 17-02-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of appeals and representation (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of convictions and sentences (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. factual details regarding fir and investigation (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. appellants' arguments against the convictions (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. prosecution's stance and responses (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. observations regarding the fir and investigation (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. investigative shortcomings and implications (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 8. critiques of witness credibility and testimonies (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 9. witness inconsistencies and prosecution weaknesses (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 10. post-mortem findings and contradicting evidence (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 11. observations on investigatory flaws (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 12. conclusion of inadequacies in prosecution (Para 47) |
| 13. court's determination of acquittal (Para 48) |
| 14. final orders and directions pertaining to acquittal (Para 49 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55) |
JUDGMENT :
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
All the three appeals have been taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. We have heard Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned Advocate for the appellants/Ravi Kumar; Md. Imtiaz and Md. Saheb Alam @ Sahab @ Banti in Cr. App(DB) No. 383 of 2014; and appellant Belal Miyan in Cr. App(DB) No. 508 of 2014; and Mr. Rajni Ranjan Prasad Singh for appellant Ajay Ram @ Ajay Kumar Kahar @ Ajay Kahar in Cr. App(DB) No. 609 of 2014.
3. Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned APP has appeared in all the three appeals on behalf of the State.
4. Appellants/Ravi Kumar; Md. Imtiaz and Saheb Alam have been convicted under Section 302 /120B of the IPC, whereas appellants Belal Miyan and Ajay Ram @ Ajay Kumar Kahar @ Ajay Kahar have been convicted under Sections 302 /120B of the IPC as also Section 27 of the ARMS ACT . The judgment has been awarded in Sessions Trial No. 222 of 2011, arising out of Ara Town P.S. Case No. 92 og 2011 by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bhojpur at Ara on 24.04.2014.
5. By order dated 30.04.2014, all the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for six months for the offence under Sections 302 /120B of the IPC. Additionally, appellants Belal Miyan and Ajay Ram @ Ajay Kumar Kahar @ Ajay Kahar have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for three months for the offence under Section 27 of the ARMS ACT .
6. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The fine amount has been directed to paid to the family of the deceased.
7. The FIR has been lodged by Md. Samim Khan (P.W. 8), who is the own brother of the deceased, on 31.03.2011 at Pirbahore Police Station. He has alleged that in the night before i.e. on 30.03.2011, his brother/deceased/Sheru Khan was being shouted at by appellant/Md. Imtiaz, perhaps over the issue of refund of some money. Later, on the call of aforenoted Md. Imtiaz, the other appellants arrived. Appellants/Belal Miyan and Ajay Ram @ Ajay Kumar Kahar @ Ajay Kahar are then said to have fired from their weapons, hitting the deceased. The deceased fell down injured. He was taken to the local hospital at Ara, from where he was referred to Patna Medical College Hospital, Patna, for better treatment. However, the deceased succumbed to the injuries at P.M.C.H., when the FIR was registered at Pirbahore Police Station under which territorial jurisdiction, P.M.C.H. is situated.
8. Later, the FIR was transferred to Ara Town Police Station, where it was registered as Ara Town P.S. Case No. 92 of 2011 dated 31.03.2011 under Sections 302 , 120B/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the ARMS ACT .
9. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet against all the appellants, who were put on trial.
10. The learned Trial Court, after having examined ten witnesses on behalf of the prosec
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and procedural flaws in evidence can lead to acquittal.
The court established that inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence warrant acquittal in murder cases, highlighting the benefit of doubt principle.
The court acquitted the appellants due to insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies, emphasizing the need for credible proof in criminal convictions.
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; lack of credible eyewitnesses and contradictions in testimony led to acquittal.
The court holds that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to significant contradictions in eyewitness accounts and absence of supporting medical evidence, warranting acqu....
The prosecution must prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts, and the quality of evidence is crucial in establishing the guilt of the accused.
Familial relationships do not inherently discredit witness testimony; credible evidence can uphold a conviction despite investigative shortcomings.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.