Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Ramesh Chand Malviya
Parsuram Prasad, Son of Jagarnath Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Chand Malviya, J.
Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants assisted by Mr. Pankaj Kumar and Mr. A. M. P. Mehta, learned APP for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Bharat Prasad, Naresh Prasad @ Ram Naresh Prasad, Chhotak Prasad and Pramod Prasad have died during the pendency of the appeal. So, the appeal against them stands abated under the provision of Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide order dated 24.06.2024 and 14.11.2024, respectively.
3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C’) challenging the Judgment of conviction dated 31.01.2006 and order of sentence dated 04.02.2006 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-1st, Ara, Bhojpur in Sessions Trial No. 209 of 1999 by which the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’). The appellant namely Parsuram Prasad has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC and further rigorous i
Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions in witness testimonies can lead to acquittal as per criminal law standards.
The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions and lack of independent witnesses, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
The court affirmed that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and testimonies of interested witnesses can be credible if corroborated by medical evidence.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; significant contradictions in witness testimonies undermine credibility, resulting in acquittal.
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, and reliance on witness testimony requires corroboration, especially when witnesses are near relatives.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; uncorroborated and contradictory witness accounts render convictions unsafe.
The evidentiary value of hostile witnesses can support the prosecution case if found credible, notwithstanding the non-recovery of weapons or procedural lapses.
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
