Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Vipul M.Pancholi, Ramesh Chand Malviya
Rajendra Yadav S/o Late Jagdish Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.
The present appeals have been filed under Section-374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the impugned judgment of conviction dated 13.06.2018 and order of sentence dated 14.06.2018 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Araria, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 1151/2012, T.R. No.64/2017 (arising out of Bhargama P.S. Case No. 43/2011) by which all the appellants have been convicted and appellant/convict Rajendra Yadav has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) for the offence punishable under Section- 302 of I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, the convict will have to undergo further one year imprisonment. He has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 5000/- (five thousand) for the offence punishable under Section- 27 of the ARMS ACT . In default of payment of fine, he will have to under further imprisonment for six months. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Appellants/convicts Badri Yadav, Kailash Yadav and Mithilesh Yadav @ Akhile
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; uncorroborated and contradictory witness accounts render convictions unsafe.
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 charges beyond reasonable doubt; unreliable eyewitness testimony, especially from near relatives, cannot substantiate a conviction.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on witness testimony requires corroboration, especially when witnesses are near relatives.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on related witnesses without corroboration is insufficient for conviction.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies and lack of independent witnesses can lead to quashing of conviction.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
The reliability of witnesses and the sufficiency of evidence are crucial in proving a case beyond 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
