Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Shailendra Singh
Sunita Devi, Wife of Sri Narayan Chaudhur @ Sri Narayan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
These three criminal appeals arising out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26th September, 2016 and 29th September, 2016 respectively (hereinafter called “impugned judgment and order”) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge XI, East Champaran at Motihari (hereinafter referred to as the “learned trial court”) in Sessions Trial No. 374 of 1998 / Supplementary Registration No. 183 of 2015 arising out of Chakia P.S. Case No. 19 of 1998, G.R. No. 259 of 1998 (State through Jagdish Singh vs. Dinesh Chaudhur and Others) have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial court has been pleased to hold the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short ‘IPC’) and they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they will have to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.
Prosecution Story
3. As per the prosecution story, fardbeyan of the informant Jagdish Singh (PW-3) was recorded on 11.02.1998 in
In criminal cases, consistent and credible evidence is essential; discrepancies and reliance on related witnesses can undermine the prosecution's case and result in acquittal.
The judgment establishes that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the absence of a direct witness does not preclude a conviction if the circumstantial evidence is compelling and the accused fails to....
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
The judgment underscores the necessity of reliable witness testimony and corroborative evidence for securing a conviction in criminal cases.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; circumstantial evidence must negate the innocence of the accused, which was not established in this case.
The court upheld the conviction based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a clear motive and reliable witness testimonies linking the appellant to the murder.
Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions in testimonies undermine the case.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any significant doubt arising from inconsistencies in evidence must benefit the accused.
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
