Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Vipul M.Pancholi, Alok Kumar Pandey
Sunil Yadav, Son of Lakhandev Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.
The present appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Code’) against the impugned judgment of conviction dated 08.06.2018 and order of sentence dated 13.06.2018, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-IInd, Munger, in Sessions Trial No.241 of 2017, arising out of Kasim Bazar P.S. Case No.81 of 2017, whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the present appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and also imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and, on failure to deposit the same, the appellant shall serve simple imprisonment for three months. Further, the appellant shall have to undergo three years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the ARMS ACT and, in default of payment of fine, he shall have to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. The prosecution story, in a nutshell, is as under:-
2.1. Fard-beyan of Savita Devi, wife of Sushant Kumar @ Fantush Yadav (deceased) came to be recorded on 15.04.2017 at 07:00 A.M. In the said fard-beyan,
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 reliability of witnesses and the sufficiency of evidence are crucial in proving a case beyond reasonable doubt.
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 conviction upheld based on credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, despite the absence of independent witnesses, affirming the trial court's judgment.
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 establish charges beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictions in witness testimony and failure to seize crucial evidence can lead to the acquittal of 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
