Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Ashok Kumar Pandey
Jagannath Prasad Sinha @ Jagnnath Prasad Singh, Son of Late Nand Prasad Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to acquittal based on factual background (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. trial court found reasonable doubt in evidence (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. emphasis on witness accounts and discrepancies (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 20) |
| 4. defense highlights non-examination of witnesses (Para 18 , 19 , 21) |
| 5. court reviews evidence under appeal standards (Para 23 , 24 , 44) |
| 6. affirmation of acquittal and dismissal of appeal (Para 38 , 45 , 46) |
JUDGMENT :
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6.
2. The appellant in the present appeal is seeking to challenge the judgment of acquittal dated 13.06.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) passed by learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Sessions Trial No. 282 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has been pleased to acquit the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 of the charges under Sections 148 , 341, 323, 324, 307, 427 and 504 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short ‘IPC’).
Prosecution Case
3. The prosecution story is based on the fardbeyan of one Jagannath P
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and discrepancies in witness testimonies and non-examination of the Investigator can lead to acquittal.
Prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt; lack of independent witnesses and material inconsistencies led to acquittal.
The court emphasized the prosecution's burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting inconsistencies and the absence of independent corroboration in witness testimonies.
Failure on the part of the prosecution to explain or disclose the genesis of the offence is also an additional factor which renders the prosecution story a bit doubtful.
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.
(1) A case and counter case arising out of same incident should always be tried by same Court.(2) Right to private defence – Reasonable apprehension of death or genuine apprehension of grievous hurt ....
Non-examination of the Investigating Officer and critical medical witnesses raises doubts about the prosecution's case, necessitating acquittal due to insufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
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
